Replies

Canon Law 212 §3 [Christ's faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.

*The Pope is a dope permissible? To many, yes.

I guess it isn't enough for some to remain silent. Nope, one must, I guess, publicly deride and denounce the Vicar of Christ or, maybe, one's reputation will come under question. Maybe, if one doesn't attack the Pope when all others are, maybe one will be suspected of approving of the Pope's actions.

Imaging approving of his actions. Imagine always reflexively obeying the Pope and restraining one's self from publicly attacking and criticising him?

Nah. That is the old Tradition and the sspx defines what is and isn't the new Tradition and they, who publicly attack and deride the Mass, the Council and the modern Popes have taught us this new Tradition.

But, how does this new Tradition differ from the the old protestant Tradition of publicly criticising and attacking the Pope? How does this new tradition differ from the old Pharisaical tradition of publicly attacking and falsely accusing Jesus?

But, doesn't the Traditional idea of obedience/support for the Pope depend upon the rightness of his actions and weren't we laymen promised special guidance from the Holy Spirt to correctly judge the Pope's intent?

I mean, isn't it obvious the Pope was scandalising the faithful at Assisi, in kissing the koran, in apologising to the Jews, in visiting a synagogue etc etc

If it wasn't in the mind of Christ to establish His Church upon the Papacy and to have the Pope's actions subject to judgement and criticism by laymen, then I must be reading my Bible wrong