To the contrary, it illustrates the proper course of action when faithful Catholics are confronted with an errant Pontiff. We have the right and duty to oppose novelties such a Pontiff attempts to decree, but we absolutely do not have the right to declare him invalid or otherwise pretend he does not exist. If he was elected in the proper manner through the college of Cardinals, we have no licit pretext for claiming he is not the Pope, however much we dislike him.
Not a novelty, eh?
Not at all. As St. Robert Bellarmine explained, we are not bound to follow orders that violate Church teaching. We are however bound to recognize the office of the Pontiff issuing those orders, even if the decrees the issues are illegitimate. We are not the Pope's superiors; we are not given the right to oust him from office or will his Papacy out of existence.
“Prince, tell me who exactly in the post-Vatican II hierarchy will do this when there is yet one prelate to actually condemn AL (versus the ever-so-popular post Vatican II "ambiguous" canard) ? No answer Prince?”
Sorry, I didn't see your post. There are a few. Cardinal Burke, for one. And even if there were none---that does not justify the rest of us refusing to recognize the existence of the Papacy. Bottom line, pius---no matter what they do, that does not justify us indulging in novelties, breaking away because the current Pope is a scourge from hell. There is only one Ark, pius, against which all the devil's efforts are directed. An unworthy captain drilling holes in the bottom of God's ark is not our cue to leap overboard. Francis may be the most unworthy captain since Rodrigo Borgia---but he was elected. We are not invested with the right to invalidate that election.
Private judgment is okie dokey when it involves Catholics judging the liturgy, discipline and teachings of true popes, but private judgment of sedevcantists in baaaaad. Hypocrisy at its finest.
To the contrary, pius. We obey the proscribed limits of the liberty invested in us to resist the teachings of an unworthy Pope. St. Robert Bellarmine delineates them very clearly---we DO have the right to oppose the teachings of a Pope who strays from his proscribed authority; we DO NOT have the right to deprive him of his office, invalidate his Papacy, or punish him, since these are actions only permitted to a superior.
Poor St. Robert. I don't think he even realized he was a hypocrite.
If, through God's permissive will, a pope acts as a "scourge", we ought to accept and endure the chastisement and offer up the sufferings he inflicts.
"And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me". (Matthew 10:38)
If a particular pope is eventually determined by the Church to have been an anti-pope, we will have incurred no sin by engaging in the Catholic practices of offering prayers and penances for him during his incumbency, nor by "resisting him to his face" when he proposes deviations from the Deposit of Faith. On the other hand, if we mistakenly turn our back on one who in the Mind of God is a legitimate pope because our private judgment misleads us, we risk offending God.
He's not. Just like Blather you are completely misunderstanding his "licit to resist" quote in order to attempt to rationalize *your* novel response to the Crisis: to resist a true pope's liturgy, laws and teachings on faith and morals. St Bellarmine in no way teaches that we can do this because St Bellarmine would not teach that a true pope can give us evil liturgies, laws and doctrines which need to be resisted.
From the traditionalmass.org link above:
Traditionalists do indeed “resist”the false doctrines (e.g., on ecumenism) and evil laws (e.g. the New Mass) promulgated by the post-Conciliar popes.But in the famous quote Bellarmine addresses another case entirely: he has been asked about a pope who unjustly attacks someone, disturbs the public order, or “tries to kill souls by his bad example.” (animas malo suo exemplo nitatur occidere.) In his reply he says “it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders.” (…licet, inquam, ei resistere, non faciendo quod jubet.)This language describes a pope who gives bad example or evil commands, rather than — as would be the case with Paul VI or his successors — a pope who teaches doctrinal error or imposes evil laws. This is clear from chapter 27 of Cardinal Cajetan’s De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, which Bellarmine then immediately cites to support his position.
First, in his title for chapter 27 Cajetan says he is going to discuss a type of papal offense “other than heresy.” (ex alio crimine quam haeresis.) Heresy, he says, completely alters a pope’s status as a Christian (mutavit christianitatis statum). It is the “greater crime” (majus crimen). The others are “lesser crimes” (criminibus minoribus) that are “not equal to it” (cetera non sunt paria, [ed. Rome: Angelicum 1936] 409). Neither Bellarmine nor Cajetan, therefore, are referring to “resisting” a pope’s doctrinal errors while continuing still to consider him a true pope.
Second, throughout De Comparatione, Cajetan provides specific examples of the papal misdeeds that do justify this resistance on the part of subjects: “promoting the wicked, oppressing the good, behaving as a tyrant, encouraging vices, blasphemies, avarices, etc.” (356), “if he oppresses the Church, if he slays souls [by bad example]” (357), “dissipating [the Church’s] goods” (359), “if he manifestly acts against the common good of charity towards the Church Militant” (360), tyranny, oppression, unjust aggression (411), “publicly destroying the Church,” selling ecclesiastical benefices, and bartering offices (412).
All these involve evil commands (praecepta) — but evil commands are not the same as evil laws (leges). A command is particular and transitory; law is general and is stable. (For an explanation, see R. Naz, “Précepte,” Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique,[Paris: Letouzey 1935-65] 7:116–17.) Bellarmine and Cajetan’s argument justifies only resisting a pope’s evil commands (to sell the pastorate of a parish to the highest bidder, say). It does not support the notion that a pope, while still retaining authority from Jesus Christ, can (for example) impose a sacrilegious, Protestantized Mass on the whole Church, whose members can then “resist” him, while continuing to recognize him as a true pope.
Pray for us St Bellarmine, today on your feast day.