Tradition:The Question of Obedience

[PastorAeternus]

INPEFESS, I’m sorry, but it does not have to be “established that this is the real Church, that VII is binding, and whether or not Benedict XVI really is the Pope.”  Our obligation towards VC2 has already been established and I am not going to entertain a “debate” about whether we have a “real” church or a “real” pope. That is a given, and a matter of divine and Catholic faith.     

 

I don't formally deny that Rome is not the real Churchh, that VII is binding, or that Benedict XVI is really the Pope, but they are common points of contention that often surface in these discussions. If you just mandate that everyone believes what you believe from the beginning, then you are assuming the acceptance of your beliefs from the very beginning. The issue of VII's bind upon the faithful is a point of constant debate and while you may approach it as a fact, others will dispute this point. That should be determined first so there is some sort of a 'common ground' on which to begin. The visible presence of the Church might be in Rome, but have we all agreed that the invisible presence is there as well? Isn't it possible that if Benedict XVI has separated himself from the Divine revelations of the Holy Ghost, the invisible presence is no longer with Rome but with antiquity? How about whether or not the Pope has changed the matter or form of all seven sacraments? They need not be explicitly changed; only implicitly. The Church's formal denial of limbo is a direct assault on the sacrament of Baptism yet this sacrament was never specifically denied by the Church.

I do not mandate that everyone must believe what I believe, I am simply saying that if we let the “sede” thesis bog us down, we will not get very far in this debate.   So I did not mean to convey that I am exercising some sort of “control” over the debate by stating that I will not entertain a “debate” about whether we have a “real” church or a “real” pope (though that does sound controlling - sorry), I simply do not wish to see this debate fall apart with unnecessary squabbling.

However, the arguments themselves should prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Church cannot fail, that the faith of Peter cannot fail, and that true obedience is not an “option” for those who feel qualified to judge the Holy See and his supreme sovereign Primacy over the entire Church.  

The issue of VII's bind upon the faithful is a point of constant debate and while you may approach it as a fact, others will dispute this point. That should be determined first so there is some sort of a 'common ground' on which to begin.

Here is my understanding of a common ground on which, I believe, we can begin: VCII is binding on the Faithful (with the ususal theological qualifications and without suggesting that the Council formally defined any doctrines). We always understand an ambiguous or problematic teaching as having the same meaning as it was always taught by the Church. However, Cardinal Ratzinger has provided the ground rules for voicing legitimate critism and concerns over apparent contradictions:

 

"It must be noted that, because the conciliar texts are of varying authority, criticism of certain of their ex­pressions, in accordance with the general rules of adhesion to the Magisterium, is not forbidden. You may likewise express a desire for a statement or an explanation on various points. You may not, however, affirm that the conciliar texts, which are magisterial texts, are incompatible with the Magisterium and with Tradition. You may say that personally you cannot see how they are compatible, and so ask the Holy See for an explanation.” (Michael Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty p.3)

As soon as someone argues that the magisterial texts of VCII are NOT compatible with the Magisterium and with Tradition, they have encroached upon the sovereign territory of Papal Primacy and they are judging the Pope by suggesting that the Holy See is tainted with error.     

Isn't it possible that if Benedict XVI has separated himself from the Divine revelations of the Holy Ghost, the invisible presence is no longer with Rome but with antiquity?

Two major errors here.  The first is to assume that the pope, in the exercise of his Sovereign Primacy, can separate Himself from the Church (or the Holy Ghost).  Once again:

  “…For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides and judges to this day, always in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by Him and consecrated by His Blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See does by the institution of Christ Himself obtain the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. The disposition made by Incarnate Truth (dispositio veritatis) therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock's strength which he received (in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans), has not abandoned the direction of the Church.” (VC1)

The second error is to divorce the power of Sovereign Primacy from the person of the Pope. Our Lord conferred Primacy upon a person, not upon an office and not upon “antiquity”.  Someone might follow with the suggestion that the Pope, in his Sovereign acts of Papal Primacy, can act against the continuous magisterium of the Church.  That would be three errors.    

How about whether or not the Pope has changed the matter or form of all seven sacraments?

First of all, the pope has no power over the substance of the sacraments and he will not and cannot change the substance of any sacrament. However, for those sacraments for which he has the power and the exclusive Jurisdiction over both matter and form, or over the form only, one may not judge his supreme authority and Jurisdiction over such matters.  Whatever lawful changes he makes, he does so for the good of the Church - even if we consider his actions imprudent.

Once again your question suggests that one may infringe upon (judge) the exclusive power of Papal Primacy over the disciplines and governance of the whole Church.

The Church's formal denial of limbo is a direct assault on the sacrament of Baptism yet this sacrament was never specifically denied by the Church.

The Church has not “formally denied” any such thing. It should be obvious that, contrary to the charge, I am not the one confusing impeccability and papolatry with Papal Primacy and infallibility.  You also need to be careful in your understanding of precisely what the Church has “defined” with regard to “Limbo”.   

Thank you.

 

[didishroom]

The Church's formal denial of limbo is a direct assault on the sacrament of Baptism yet this sacrament was never specifically denied by the Church.

 

This is what happens when you get knews from America media and Sedes. Most newspaper headlines had pictures of Pope Benedict in a solmen manner with arms spread as if decreeing something with captions like this "Pope Abolishes Limbo!"
 
Most people didn't read further than this. If they did they would see that the document did not deny the Limbo of the infants but that maybe, possiblly, there is a small wincy chance that God will save them.This document was written by theologians, one of whom I believe was a woman which means a non cleric, and not the pope. While I think Pope Benedict was wrong to allow it to be published it has no more binding effect on anyone or anything than the private specualtion of certain theologians, of whom not all are ordained.

Pope Benedict or the Church did not declare anything when it came to Limbo. Some theologians posed a hypothetical question and it was published.

[INPEFESS]

This is what happens when you get knews from America media and Sedes. Most newspaper headlines had pictures of Pope Benedict in a solmen manner with arms spread as if decreeing something with captions like this "Pope Abolishes Limbo!"

Please don't surreptitiously imply that I am buffoon for believing this. Just so that you and I are clear, I never even heard about it from the news, press, or any secular source. I learned this truth as a matter of progressive theology that emanates from this compromise.

If a member of the Church implied that "maybe, possibly, there is a small wincy chance" that Hell didn't exist, I hope we wouldn't try to justify that, too.

[Gerard]

However, the arguments themselves should prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Church cannot fail, that the faith of Peter cannot fail, and that true obedience is not an “option” for those who feel qualified to judge the Holy See and his supreme sovereign Primacy over the entire Church.  

 
The faith of Peter as an individual can certainly fail.  The Pope is a human being who has a free will.  He is free to reject his faith and lose it.
 
True obedience was explicitly stated in Vatican I to clarify and define the type of obedience necessary.  True obedience rules out false obedience and absolute obedience.
 

[Two major errors here.  The first is to assume that the pope, in the exercise of his Sovereign Primacy, can separate Himself from the Church (or the Holy Ghost).  Once again:

  “…For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides and judges to this day, always in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by Him and consecrated by His Blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See does by the institution of Christ Himself obtain the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. The disposition made by Incarnate Truth (dispositio veritatis) therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock's strength which he received (in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans), has not abandoned the direction of the Church.” (VC1)

The second error is to divorce the power of Sovereign Primacy from the person of the Pope. Our Lord conferred Primacy upon a person, not upon an office and not upon “antiquity”.  Someone might follow with the suggestion that the Pope, in his Sovereign acts of Papal Primacy, can act against the continuous magisterium of the Church.  That would be three errors.   

Unfortunately history doesn't provide the examples necessary for the Super-Pope. 


The case of Pope Stephen vs. Pope Formosus is a prime example of Popes exercising their full power for the purpose of making formal judgements that cannot have been sanctioned or protected by the Holy Ghost. since they contradict one another.  All valid Popes, all exercising their authority and unfortunately only one truth. 

From the CE:


Stephen VI lent himself to the revolting scene of sitting in judgment on his predecessor, Formosus. At the synod convened for that purpose, he occupied the chair; the corpse, clad in papal vestments, was withdrawn from the sarcophagus and seated on a throne; close by stood a deacon to answer in its name, all the old charges formulated against Formosus under John VIII being revived.

The decision was that the deceased had been unworthy of the pontificate, which he could not have validly received since he was bishop of another see.

All his measures and acts were annulled, and all the orders conferred by him were declared invalid.

The papal vestments were torn from his body; the three fingers which the dead pope had used in consecrations were severed from his right hand; the corpse was cast into a grave in the cemetery for strangers, to be removed after a few days and consigned to the Tiber.

In 897 the second successor of Stephen had the body, which a monk had drawn from the Tiber, reinterred with full honours in St. Peter's.


He furthermore annulled at a synod the decisions of the court of Stephen VI, and declared all orders conferred by Formosus valid.

John IX confirmed these acts at two synods, of which the first was held at Rome and the other at Ravenna (898).

On the other hand Sergius III (904-911) approved in a Roman synod the decisions of Stephen's synod against Formosus; all who had received orders from the latter were to be treated as lay persons, unless they sought reordination.

Sergius and his party meted out severe treatment to the bishops consecrated by Formosus, who in turn had meanwhile conferred orders on many other clerics, a policy which gave rise to the greatest confusion.

 Against these decisions many books were written, which demonstrated the validity of the consecration of Formosus and of the orders conferred by him
 

[didishroom]

Please don't surreptitiously imply that I am buffoon for believing this. Just so that you and I are clear, I never even heard about it from the news, press, or any secular source. I learned this truth as a matter of progressive theology that emanates from this compromise.

If a member of the Church implied that "maybe, possibly, there is a small wincy chance" that Hell didn't exist, I hope we wouldn't try to justify that, too.
Don't take things personally. I never said you were an idiot or anything like that.
I am also not justifying it either, as I believe in the Limbo of the Infants. My point is Pope Benedict didn't say anything about Limbo. He just let some theologians publish their stupid paper. 

[INPEFESS]

He just let some theologians publish their stupid paper. 

Ok, perhaps I'm reading into your comment too much; it just seems to imply that you assumed I am ignorant to the subtle challenges against Church doctrine outside of the secular news media. A Pope permitting the publishing of material that contradicts dogmatic facts is a formal challenge against the doctrines of the Church as it introduces confusion and doubt as to the certainty of the Church's infallibility. It calls into question the necessity of Baptism as well as other doctrines of the Church that could also be 'wrong'. Anything "Pope" approved is as formal as it gets. He doesn't have to be speaking ex cathedra or summon an ecumenical council to imply that the the Holy Fathers may have been misinformed.

[INPEFESS]

PastorAeternus, greetings in Christ!
 
As it pertains to the issue of the conservative maintenance of Sacred Tradition, I shall reiterate that which was already stated as well as clarify a simple oversight of logic.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“According to the Axiom: lex dubia non obligat, a doubtful law does not bind. But a law is doubtful when there is a solidly probable opinion against it. Hence it is lawful to follow a solidly probable opinion in favor of liberty. (cf. Tanquerey, Theologia Fundamentalis, n. 409)”

“In estimating the degree which is required and which suffices for solid probability, moralists lay down the general principle that an opinion is solidly probable which by reason of intrinsic or extrinsic arguments is able to gain the assent of many prudent men.

 

"All admit that extrinsic authority can have sufficient weight to make an opinion solidly probable; but there is divergence of view in estimating what number of experts is able to give an opinion this solid probability. The prevailing theory amongst Probabilists holds that if five or six theologians, notable for prudence and learning, independently adhere to an opinion their view is solidly probable, if it has not been set aside by authoritative decisions or by intrinsic arguments which they have failed to solve. Even one theologian of very exceptional authority, such as St. Alphonsus Liguori, is able to make an opinion solidly probable, as we know from the official declarations of the Holy See. All moralists agree that mere flimsy reasons are insufficient to give an opinion solid probability, and also that the support of many theologians who are mere collectors of the opinions of others is unable to give solid probability to the view which they maintain.

- - - -

“If the less safe opinion is speculatively uncertain it is unlawful to follow it in practice, until all reasonable effort has been made to remove the uncertainty, by considering the arguments on both sides and by consulting available authorities. It is unlawful, also, to act on the less safe view unless the speculative uncertainty has been changed into practical certainty that the action to be performed is lawful. The whole question at issue between different moral systems concerns the way in which the speculative uncertainty is changed into practical certainty; each system has what is called a reflex principle of its own, by which practical certainty can be obtained that the action to be performed is lawful."

The Papal Coronation Oath (John Paul II's was the only Pope in hundreds of years to not take this oath - breaking with tradition even before his reign): 

"This sacred oath was taken, as recorded in Church annals, by every Sovereign Pontiff of the Catholic Church since Pope Saint Agatho in June 27, 678. Many believe it was even taken by several predecessors of St. Agatho. Who composed it is not known. What is known is that at least 185 Supreme Pontiffs took this solemn oath over the past 1300 years. In this oath, the Vicar of Christ vows to never contradict the Deposit of Faith, or change/innovate anything that has been handed down to him..."

 

Papal Coronation Oath:

 "I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach, to alter (change), or to permit any innovation therein.
"To the contrary, with glowing affection as Her truly faithful steward and successor, (I vow) to reverently safeguard the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort.
"To cleanse all that is in contradiction with canonical order that may surface.

"To guard the holy canons and decrees of our Popes likewise as Divine Ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, Whose place I take through the grace of God, Whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine tribunal over all that I confess.

"If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful day of Divine Justice.

"Accordingly, without exclusion, we subject to the severest excommunication anyone----be it our self or be it another----who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or [who] would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or [who] would concur with those who undertake such blasphemous venture."

[Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, P. L 105, S. 54]

 

"...This sacred oath was taken religiously for 1300 years up until October 1978. The question must be asked: Why then, did John Paul II not follow his predecessors and take this sacred papal coronation oath? He is the first since the 7th century and before to not do so. Why?"

In a sermon on the subject of Papal infallibility, the 19th Cardinal John Henry Newman quoted a Pastoral Letter from the Bishops of Switzerland that received the approval of Pope Pius IX. The letter was on the subject of Papal Infallibility, and what a Pope may or not teach. The Swiss Bishops stated:
"It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition. He is tied up and limited to the Divine revelation and to the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited by the creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the Divine law, and by the constitution of the Church . . ."
[Taken from a sermon by Cardinal Newman published in Lead Kindly Light, The Life of John Henry Newman, Michael Davies (Neumann Press, Long Prairie, 2001) p. 184.]


"What shall a Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What other choice can he make if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity [Tradition] which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty." [Saint Vincent of Lerins (c. 445 A.D.) cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Fr. Kramer, (1st edition), pp. 28-29.]


St. Athanasius, who, almost exclusively opposed the Arian heresy:
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." [Quoted from Latin Mass News, Sacred Heart Church, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, Vol. 4, Issue 17.] ß


"Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither the revolutionaries nor innovators, they are the traditionalists." [Pope St. Pius X, Our Apostolic Mandate, Aug. 25, 1910, para. 44.] ß

Father Joseph de Sainte Marie was a loyal son of Pope John Paul II. Yet even he warned about those who now occupy the highest levels of the Church:
"In our day, and it is one of the most obvious signs of the extraordinarily abnormal character of the current state of the Church, it is very often the case that the acts of the Holy See demand of us prudence and discernment." [Cited from Apropos, Isle of Skye, Scotland, Issue No. 16, 1994, p. 5.]

St. Robert Bellarmine, the great champion of the Counter-Reformation, taught the following regarding lawful Catholic resistance:
"Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." [We Resist You to The Face, (Tradition in Action, 2000); "Resisting Wayward Prelates, According to the Saints", Catholic Family News, January, 1998.]


Saint Thomas Aquinas:
"There being an imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, Saint Paul, who was a subject of Saint Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Gloss of Saint Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2,14), 'Saint Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects'." (Summa theologia, Taurini/Romae: Marietti, 1948, 11.11, q.33, a.4).

"Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See- they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations." Melchior Cano, theologian of the Council of Trent


Pope Saint Pius X wrote in his Encyclical Against Modernism:
"But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicaea, where it condemns those 'who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind . . . or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow anyone of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church' . . . Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: 'I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church'." [Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi, Encyclical against Modernism, 1908, para. #42.]

And the Second Council of Nicaea teaches infallibly,
"If anyone rejects any written or unwritten Tradition of the Church, let him be anathema."
[Cited from The Great Facade, p. 28.]

On the subject of maintaining Tradition, Saint Peter Canisius, Doctor of the Church, noted in his Summa Doctrinae Christanae (Not sure of the specific article), "It behooves us unanimously to observe the ecclesiastical traditions, whether defined or simply-retained by customary practice of the Church."

Saint Peter Damian, another Doctor of the Church, teaches, "It is unlawful to alter the established customs of the Church . . . Remove not the ancient landmarks which the fathers have set."

Likewise, in the early 20th Century, Pope Benedict XV repeated almost verbatim the words of Pope Saint Stephen, when he declared "Do not innovate anything. Rest content with Tradition."
[Pope Saint Stephen said, "Let them innovate in nothing, but keep the traditions."]

Cardinal Torquemada [1388-1468], a medieval theologian and “papist” responsible for the formulation of the doctrines that were defined at Florence:
"Were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scriptures, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or Divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands he is to be disregarded." [Summa de ecclesia (Venice: M. Tranmezium, 1561). Lib. II, c. 49, p. 163B. Translation from J.H. Newman, A Letter Addressed to His Grace the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation (New York: The Catholic Publication Society, 1875), p. 86. The original statement of Juan de Torquemada is found on page 171 of The Papacy in Transition by Patrick Granfield (New York: Doubleday, 1980)]

Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada continues:
"Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29.

[The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the Divine or natural law." It follows, then, that if it is possible for a Pope to command something against Divine law, then it is likewise possible for a Pope to permit something that is against Divine or natural law, or go against the traditional teaching of the Church. Cardinal Torquemada continues: "By doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because the body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way the Pope could, without doubt, fall into schism . . . Especially is this true with regard to the Divine liturgy as for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. . . Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states (De Consuetudine) that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed . . . '"]

“It is permissible to resist the Pope when he invades souls and troubles the commonwealth; and moreover, if he appears to be causing harm to the Church, it is permissible, I say, to resist him by not doing what he enjoins and by preventing his will to triumph.” --St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice

I would say that the totality of opinions (which I have included) from many of the Holy Fathers is in defense of respectful disobedience. While you contested that almost every theologian has been guilty of teaching heresy at some point, I believe it is an erroneous employment of logic and a presumption at best to reason, therefore, that this fact renders all of their opinions moot and all of their teachings lacking in credibility. While I am aware that this is not what you specifically stated, it is implied by your prompt dismissal of my assertion on the premise that they are fallible teachers. These are reputable authors and, according to the text above, their unanimous testimony constitutes a prudent disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff and a conservative adherence to tradition. Additionally, the Church has formerly condemned the specific heretical teachings of the Roman Catholic Theologians, and I have not found the Church’s abrogation of any of the theological opinions that I presented to you in this post. To dismiss their sound theological concurrence on the basis that they each stand guilty of teaching against dogma that hadn’t yet been established is an erroneous allegation and it would be wrong to assert this. If you have information that would prove the contrary, please specify. However, the pivotal question thus becomes whether or not these theologians were divided by “…intrinsic arguments which they have failed to solve.” While sedevacantism is an anathematized theology, the SSPX never embraced this position. It doesn’t appear that the doctors of the Church failed to agree on the necessity of disobeying the Supreme Pontiff for the purpose of maintaining tradition; rather, if there was contention between them, I think they may have disagreed as to how best it is to be done. I don’t know that any significant Church Doctors have condemned the MO employed by Abp. Lefebvre for disobedience. He did what was necessary to feed the sheep. It is the security of tradition until the Church reconciles.

 

Thus we have:

 

1. Lex dubia non obligat
2. The law is most certainly doubtful.
3. Solidly probable opinion – extrinsic and intrinsic.
4. Extrinsic – The prevailing theory amongst Probabilists holds that if five or six theologians, notable for prudence and learning, independently adhere to an opinion their view is solidly probable, if it has not been set aside by authoritative decisions or by intrinsic arguments which they have failed to solve. Even one theologian of very exceptional authority, such as St. Alphonsus Liguori, is able to make an opinion solidly probable, as we know from the official declarations of the Holy See.
5. In concordance we have:
   1. Pope Innocent III / Cardinal Torquemada
   2. St. Peter Damian
   3. Pope St. Stephen
   4. Pope Benedict XV
   5. St. Peter Canisius
   6. Authors of the Council of Trent
   7. Melchior Cano
   8. Pope St. Pius X
   9. St. Robert Bellarmine
   10. St. Thomas Aquinas
   11. Saint Vincent of Lerins
   12. St. Athanasius
   13. (Pope Pius IX)

These are but a few who supported this position of disobedience.

[HMiS]

I think some of you (and StevusMagnus also, being a Master of Law) should exchange thoughts in reality, not in virtual reality, by letters, e-mails or visits to SSPX theologians from France, and other theologians.

My favourite is (non-SSPX) Fr. Georg May, professor of Canon Law in Mainz, Germany. Author of the Ökumenismusfalle (The Trap of Ecumenism) and other great books.

[StevusMagnus]

HMiS,

If you can arrange hooking me up with the Canon Law prof, please PM me. I'd love to exchange thoughts. Does he speak fluent english?

Any others you would have me contact?

Thanks!

[INPEFESS]

HMiS,

Yes, thank you for your offer.