novusordowatch.org
I'm still reading through this but thought I'd share with my Catholic buddies here, assuming I have any..
I'll say one thing.. What I am reading so far from Novus Ordo Watch is in the category of Most Interesting stuff I've heard in years.. maybe ever.
"Each Catholic needs to be his own theologian."
With regard to his own conscience and behavior, yes - that's exactly what the Church teaches. If this were not the case, how could Christ have commanded us to judge in all the ways that He did? How could Scripture command us to "use judgement, and hold on to whatever is good" (1 Thes 5:21)? Or Christ order us "Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57), in relation to interpreting the time? How could we know whether or not we are hearing "another gospel" (Gal 1:8) if Christians were completely unable to discern right from wrong? For that matter, how could one come to the sedevacantist position that it is morally certain that the man canonically-elected pope does not hold the public office of pope if he is not able to think?
Individual Catholics cannot formulate doctrine but they can, and must, decide if a given statement or teaching is Catholic or not, even when that statement comes from a churchman. To say this is not the case is to assert, among many other absurdities and contradictions, that the faithful in the time of Arias should have followed their Arian bishops into Hell.
Let's take a look at what the theologians have to say about the duty of resisting a [legitimate] pope - we've all seen some or all of these quotes before, including from sedevacantist sources:
St. Thomas says: "To resist openly and in public goes beyond the measure of fraternal correction. St. Paul would not have done it towards St. Peter if he had not in some way been his equal... We must realize, however, that if there was question of a danger for the faith, the superiors would have to be rebuked by their inferiors, even in public."
And also: “It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.”
And: "There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith."
(All quotes are from the Summa.)
St. Bellarmine: "Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, 'One ought to obey God rather than man': therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over."
So, Robert Bellarmine, Saint and Doctor, tells us that sometimes a pope - certainly the context speaks of a valid pope - must sometimes "out not to be obeyed". (Though this statement may seem to apply to juridical commands rather than teachings, certainly demanding assent of a non-infallible and in fact erroneous statement falls into the same category.)
Bellarmine again: "Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed."
Augustine: "Paul showed, nonetheless, that it is possible for subordinates to have the boldness to resist their superiors without fear, when in all charity they speak out in the defense of truth."
Suarez: “If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.”
Could there be clearer support for the Recognize & Resist position than any one of these teachings from the theologians? It seems that any theologian of merit who spoke on the issue took the position that it is lawful to resist a pope who attempts to harm the Church - rather than the sedevacantist attitude which is essentially that individuals must declare that any pope who behaves thus simply isn't the pope.
A Response to Novus Ordo Watch - A Catholic Thinker
