In article <Apr.20.03.03.06.1993.3836@geneva.rutgers.edu> shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:     You ask where we are.  I would echo that question.  I'm not trying to be    contentious.  But assuming that the Pope has universal jurisdiction    and authority, what authority do you rely upon for your decisions?    What prevents me from choosing ANY doctrine I like and saying that    Papal disagreement is an error that will be resolved in time?    This is especially true, since Councils of Bishops have basically    stood by the Pope.  The ultimate question is the traditional theology of the Church.  This is the *only* thing that it is possible to resist a Pope for: his departure from the traditional doctrine of the Church.  If commands from *any* authority conflict with Tradition, the commands must be disobeyed.  My own view on this is that this conflict could only happen in a major way.  God would never allow a hair-splitting situation to develop; it would be too complex for people to figure out.  I don't view the present situation in the Church as anything extremely complicated. Run through a list of what has happened in the last 30 years in the Catholic Church, and any impartial observer will be aghast.     It appears that much of what lies at the heart of this matter is    disagreements over what is tradition and Tradition, and also over    authority and discipline.    The problems stem from a general widespread ignorance of the Catholic Faith, in my opinion.  Most Catholics know about zilch about the Catholic Faith; this leaves them wide open for destruction by erring bishops.  It's basically the Reformation part II.  There is not even a question in my mind that in some respects the shards of the Catholic Church are currently being trampled upon by the Catholic hierarchy.  I could go on listing shocking things for an hour, probably.  Take the situation in Campos, Brazil, for example.  I'm reading a book on what happened there after Vatican Council II.  The bishop, Antonio de Castro-Mayer, never introduced all the changes that followed in the wake of Vatican II.  He kept the traditional Mass, the same old catechisms, etc.  He made sure the people knew their faith, the Catholic theology of obedience, what Modernism was, etc.  He innoculated the people against what was coming.  Well, one day the order came from Rome for his retirement.  It came when the Pope was sick.  Bishop de Castro-Mayer waited until the Pope recovered, then inquired whether this command was what the Pope really wanted, or something that some Liberal had commanded in his absence. The Pope confirmed the decision.  So the good bishop retired.  The injustice that followed was completely incredible.  A new bishop was installed.  He proceeded to expel most of bishop de Castro-Mayer's clergy from their churches, because they refused to celebrate the New Mass.  The new bishop would visit a parish, and celebrate a New Mass. The people would promptly walk out of the church en masse.  The bishop was *enraged* by this.  He usually resorted to enlisting the help of the secular authorities to eject the priest from the church.  The priests would just start building new churches; the people were completely behind them.  The old parishes had the New Mass, as the bishop desired -- and virtually no parishioners.  The prime motivation for all this was completely illegal, according to canon law.  No priest can be penalized in any way for saying the traditional Mass, because of legislation enacted by Pope Saint Pius V. Nor is there any obligation to say the New Mass.  During all this process, the people of Campos, not just private individuals, but including civil authorities, were constantly sending petitions and letters to Rome to do something about the new Modernist bishop.  NOTHING was ever done; no help ever arrived from Rome. Eventually 37 priests were kicked out, and about 40,000 people.     My question to the supporters of SSPX is this:  	 Is there ANY way that your positions with respect to church reforms 	 could change and be conformed to those of the Pope? (assuming that 	 the Pope's position does not change and that the leaders of SSPX 	 don't jointly make such  choice.)     If not, this appears to be claiming infallible teaching authority.    If I adopt the view that "I'm NOT wrong, I CAN'T be wrong, and    there's NO WAY I'll change my mind, YOU must change yours", that    I've either left the Catholic Church or it has left me.  If the Pope defines certain things ex cathedra, that would be the end of the controversy.  That process is all very well understood in Catholic theology, and anyone who doesn't go along with it is an instant non-Catholic.  The problem here is that people do not appreciate what is going on in the Catholic world.  If they knew the Faith, and what our bishops are doing, they would be shocked!     We sould argue from now until the Second Coming about what the "real"    traditional teaching of the Church is.  If this were a simple matter    East and West would not have been separated for over 900 years.  This isn't the case in the Catholic Church.  There is a massive body of traditional teaching.  The Popes of the last 150 years are especially relevant.  There is no question at all what the traditional doctrine is.     I thought that the teaching magisterieum of the church did not allow    error in teachings regarding faith and morals even in the short term.`    I may be wrong here, I'm not Roman Catholic. :-)  That's heresy, more or less.  Although they have done a great job since the Reformation, the last 30 years have seen so many errors spread that it's pitiful.  Infallibility rests in the Pope, and in the Church as a whole.  In the short term, a Pope, or large sections of the Church can go astray.  In fact, that's what usually happens during a major heresy: large sections of the Church go astray.  (The Pope historically has been much more reliable.)  Everything will always come back in the long run.     What would be the effect of a Pope making an ex cathedra statement    regarding the SSPX situation?  Would it be honored?  If not, how    do you get around the formal doctrine of infallibility?    Again, I'm not trying to be contentions, I'm trying to understand.    Since I'm Orthodox, I've got no real vested interest in the outcome,    one way or the other.  Yes, it would be honored.  Infallibility is infallibility.  But what is he going to define?  That the New Mass is a better expression of the Catholic Faith than the old?  That sex education in the Catholic schools is wonderful?  That all religions are wonderful except for that professed by the Popes prior to Vatican II?     It does if the command was legitimate.  SSPX does not view the    Pope's commands as legitimate.  Why?  This is a VERY slippery slope.