You originally wrote: "Not from "the pope" per se, but from Karol Wojtyla whom he considers to be invalid."
I responded: "Luckily, Mario Derksen's personal considerations of validity and invalidity have no theological or moral weight."
And now you tell me it's irrelevant? Why did you make that point if you did not want it addressed?
But it was mentioned in your comments to which I was responding.
I believe it's Catholic theology that a soldier can and must disobey any orders which are inherently immoral.
Of course, but I don't think anyone was arguing that the Pope was commanding Catholics to commit sins.
Again, that's not mentioned in the article, so you're bringing in lots of unrelated material.
Again, you discussed these issues above, so I don't know why you don't want to discuss them now.
Secondly, Canon Law very often contains statements of Catholic doctrine in addition to disciplinary material.
Mario's on the topic introduces the novel claim that Church disciplinary norms are infallible.
I posted a "ping" to the article which mentioned only the philosophical issues and the fact that young people like Mario Derksen were putting such an incredible amount of effort into investigating these subjects. Neither the article nor my ping mentions the topic of sedevacantism. My statement that about Derksen's position on Wojtyla was simply to clarify the facts for someone (was it you?) who launched right into the sedevacantist issue.
Of course, but I don't think anyone was arguing that the Pope was commanding Catholics to commit sins.
But that's not the point is it? The point was whether a soldier has to wait for some higher authority before withholding his obedience. Thank you for admitting that you were wrong on that point.
But as far as whether JPII actually is "commanding Catholics to commit sins," for me the rubber really meets the road with the marriage issues. Since nearly every Catholic eventually ends up getting married, and sins in this realm are by definition "grave matter," any mistakes in this area lead straight to the brink of hell for the vast majority of Catholics. And in this realm I believe that the phenomenological personalism of JPII (and others) has undermined all 3 of the foundations of marriage: fruitfulness, faithfulness and permanency.
1. He has taught "responsible parenthood" involving "family size regulation" through natural rather than artificial means, instead of the traditional Catholic teaching of generosity, fruitfulness and reliance on God's divine Providence.
2. He has undermined the "order of love" which provides the structure of marriage by denying the Catholic teaching on wives' submission to the authority of their husbands.
3. He has presided over an unprecedented explosion of annulments, which has resulted directly from his personalism, according to Msgr. Cormac Burke of the Roman Rota. Catholics are now divorcing in equal numbers with non-Catholics under the confident assumption that they are virtually guaranteed an annulment.
These are the sorts of things that originally made me come to the realization that I could not obey what he taught. God made the eternal salvation of the souls of my wife and children my responsibility, and I realized that following his new model of marriage would be fatal. I had to discover traditional Catholic marriage philosophy as articulated, for example, in Casti Connubii.
And lest you think that JPII's teachings on marriage are not contradictory to Casti Connubbi and other traditional Catholic teachings, just the other day on this forum Bai MacFarland was taking me to task for not changing my view on marriage to be consistent with the current pope. She said that wives' submission to their husbands used to be the teaching of the Church, but now the current pope has changed that doctrine and that all Catholics are required to change their view to coincide with his new understanding. She, by the way, is the wife of Bud MacFarland, the founder of Catholicity, and they are in the process of getting divorced.