Denying the authority of Rome would certainly fall somewhere between tendentious and totally heretical, but disobeying Rome would not, of itself, be any kind of heretical. Kinda like how your kids can disobey you without rejecting the idea that you are their mother and have authority over them. And occasionally, you *want* them to disobe…
Denying the authority of Rome would certainly fall somewhere between tendentious and totally heretical, but disobeying Rome would not, of itself, be any kind of heretical. Kinda like how your kids can disobey you without rejecting the idea that you are their mother and have authority over them. And occasionally, you *want* them to disobey you, due to particular circumstances and hierarchies of principles.
Ecclesiastical authority also has varying levels, and limitations. There's always the question of whether people actually know about the orders. There's the questions regarding whether the orders were meant officially but was partly countermanded unofficially. There's the question of whether the order is actually a good idea to follow, and whether the person countermanding it has the authority to do so. (An example, though I'm not sure for exactly which of these, is Bishop Karol Wojtyla, who consecrated bishops in Poland contrary to the specific orders of the relevant Vatican department, which was trying to get either no Polish bishops, or bishops that wouldn't rile the commies.)
Denying the authority of Rome would certainly fall somewhere between tendentious and totally heretical, but disobeying Rome would not, of itself, be any kind of heretical. Kinda like how your kids can disobey you without rejecting the idea that you are their mother and have authority over them. And occasionally, you *want* them to disobey you, due to particular circumstances and hierarchies of principles.
Ecclesiastical authority also has varying levels, and limitations. There's always the question of whether people actually know about the orders. There's the questions regarding whether the orders were meant officially but was partly countermanded unofficially. There's the question of whether the order is actually a good idea to follow, and whether the person countermanding it has the authority to do so. (An example, though I'm not sure for exactly which of these, is Bishop Karol Wojtyla, who consecrated bishops in Poland contrary to the specific orders of the relevant Vatican department, which was trying to get either no Polish bishops, or bishops that wouldn't rile the commies.)