Papal infallibility

[guedry7]

Not trying to pick a fight here, but looking at responses to an earlier thread, I take it that my sspx brothers do not follow the guidelines of Papal infallibility. If you do then where did the Holy Spirit get it wrong? My understanding of Papal Infallibility is that the Pope is prevented from error in teachings on faith and morals " From the Chair of Peter ". I believe it’s called Excathedra?

 

[Yours_Truly]

Not trying to pick a fight here, but looking at responses to an earlier thread, I take it that my sspx brothers do not follow the guidelines of Papal infallibility. If you do then where did the Holy Spirit get it wrong? My understanding of Papal Infallibility is that the Pope is prevented from error in teachings on faith and morals " From the Chair of Peter ". I believe it’s called Excathedra?

The SSPX believes in Papal Infallibility and accepts every single infallible dogma. What they do not accept are any new teachings that were formally condemned by the Popes.

During the 19th and first half of the 20th century, the Popes repeatedly condemned certain modern errors. They even excommunicated those who persisted in those errors. Unfortunately those errors spread and the adherents to those errors are now in key positions in the Church, and are pretending that these errors now represent official Church teaching.

The SSPX is holdng to what all the Popes taught prior to Vatican II, and therefore refuse to accept, as true, errors that have been formally condemned. For this they are persecuted.

Have you ever noticed that heretical Priests are allowed to deny any doctrine they chose and are left in peace, while the SSPX - who refuses to deny the dogmas of the faith and accept what has bee condemned - are persecuted?

We are in a parallel of the Arain crisis of the 4th century. Here’s a link to some interesting quotes from those who lived during that time.

traditio.com/tradlib/arians.txt

 

[guedry7]

IF I understand you right, then you are aserting that many Bishops, post Vatican Two, are in heresy, including the Popes since this time?
How did Papal Infalibility fail, if the Holy Spirit prevents error?

 

[guedry7]

Is Papal infallibility not in play here . Yours Truely I have to leave internet world now, but I am interested in just what seperates us. Is it Ecumenism?

 

[Yours_Truly]

IF I understand you right, then you are aserting that many Bishops, post Vatican Two, are in heresy, including the Popes since this time?
How did Papal Infalibility fail, if the Holy Spirit prevents error?

Papal Infallibility didn’t fail. Papal Infallibility applies when a Pope defines a dogma. It didn’t apply when Pope John XXII publicly taught a heresy that he renounced in writing on his death bed, and neither did it apply when Pope Honorious taught the heresy that Christ has only one will. Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by a later Pope at a Council.

Pope Adrian: "POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523): “If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff,** it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith.** He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sententiam).

    "After his death [Pope] Honorius was anathematized by the Eastern Church.  We must remember that he was accused of heresy, a crime which legitimizes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, together with the rejection of their pernicious doctrines.  (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII,

act. VII)

 

[Yours_Truly]

Is Papal infallibility not in play here . Yours Truely I have to leave internet world now, but I am interested in what seperates us.

I’m only separated from you if you are outside of the Catholic Church. If you are a member of the Church and accept all its teachings, we are not separated.

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

The SSPX believes in Papal Infallibility and accepts every single infallible dogma. What they do not accept are any new teachings that were formally condemned by the Popes.

I ask this honestly; which teachings?

During the 19th and first half of the 20th century, the Popes repeatedly condemned certain modern errors. They even excommunicated those who persisted in those errors. Unfortunately those errors spread and the adherents to those errors are now in key positions in the Church, and are pretending that these errors now represent official Church teaching.

Don’t the new popes teach these new teachings publicly?

The SSPX is holding to what all the Popes taught prior to Vatican II, and therefore refuse to accept, as true, errors that have been formally condemned. For this they are persecuted.
Have you ever noticed that heretical Priests are allowed to deny any doctrine they chose and are left in peace, while the SSPX - who refuses to deny the dogmas of the faith and accept what has bee condemned - are persecuted?

It seems on the surface that it (SSPX) doesn’t adhere to this rule of Pope Leo. Or does it? Can I get an explanation?
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 10), June 29, 1896: “For this reason, as the unity of faith is of necessity for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also
for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino (by divine law).”
It seems as though a Catholic is obligated by Divine Law to be in Communion with all the Teachings that the Church teaches publicly.

We are in a parallel of the Arain crisis of the 4th century. Here’s a link to some interesting quotes from those who lived during that time.

There is one big difference it seems to me. The Arians were heretics and the Church refused to be in Communion with them.
On the other hand, the SSPX believes the Church is promoting errors publicly and the SSPX refused communion with the Church. (I assume you are not going to accept the reconciliation, by your words in paragraph 1; correct me if i am wrong.)

 

[guedry7]

I am Catholic, and I do believe in the unbroken chain of the papacy, no mater how weak some links were. God bless friend in Christ.

 

[Yours_Truly]

":

The SSPX believes in Papal Infallibility and accepts every single infallible dogma. What they do not accept are any new teachings that were formally condemned by the Popes.

I ask this honestly; which teachings?

I’ll give one formally condemned error that the SSPX refuses to accept. The error was condemned many times. The following comes from the Syllabus of errors of Pius IX:

[It is an error to believe that] “every many is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Syllabus #15)

I just had a long discussion on this subject in another thread. If you search through my old posts, you can find all of the objections and my reply.

Don’t the new popes teach these new teachings publicly?

Unfortunately, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI teach exactly what was condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus. Not only the one I quoted above, at least one more formally condemned error.

It seems on the surface that it (SSPX) doesn’t adhere to this rule of Pope Leo. Or does it? Can I get an explanation?
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 10), June 29, 1896: “For this reason, as the unity of faith is of necessity for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino (by divine law).”
It seems as though a Catholic is obligated by Divine Law to be in Communion with all the Teachings that the Church teaches publicly.

That is a great encyclical. One which I myself often recommend. The SSPX never left the Church. I started to write you a long explanation, but I don’t have it in me.

There is one big difference it seems to me. The Arians were heretics and the Church refused to be in Communion with them.
On the other hand, the SSPX believes the Church is promoting errors publicly and the SSPX refused communion with the Church. (I assume you are not going to accept the reconciliation, by your words in paragraph 1; correct me if i am wrong.)

You have that exactly backwards. The Arian heresy worked its way into the Church in such a way that, according to Fr. Jurgins who edited Faith of Our Fathers, between 97 and 99 percent of the Bishops were, in reality, Arian heretics. These were the Bishop in union with the Pope. No excommunicated Bishops.

It was an exact parallel of what is happening today. This is what Bishop Rudolph Graber, of Regensburg, said:

Bishop Graber:" What happened over 1600 years ago [at the time of the Arian heresy] is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria [the patriarchal see of St. Athanasius] is today the whole universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment." (Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, p. 23):

You need to read the quotes in the link I provided. One of the quotes is from Cardinal Newman who said that, based on his studies, he believed that 80% of the Bishops were Arian heretics. He said that the “teaching Church” (the Bishops) failed in their duty. The few who kept the true faith refused to go to the local Churches because, as St Basil said “they would have no part of the wicked Arian leaven”, just like the Traditionalists today will have no part with “the wicked Liberal leaven”.

I’ll give you a quote from St. Athanasius who was, by all appearances, an excommunicated Schismatic. He was excommunicated by Pope Liberius and in exile from his diocese; yet in the end he was canonized, and Pope Liberius was the first Pope not to be.

continue…

 

[Yours_Truly]

continuation

Here’s the letter of St. Athanasius. Remember, he had been excommunicated by the Pope, banned from his diocese 5 times, and was operating outside of the normal structure of the Church - just like the SSPX has been doing. This is the letter he wrote to his “schismatic” followers.

Letter of St. Athanasius to his flock:

May God console you!.. What saddens you … is the fact that
others [the Arian heretics] have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. **It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the faith dwells within you. **Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously.

Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the buildings or the one who keeps the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the churches from old time until now may not be lost in our days,… rouse yourselves, brethren,… seeing them now seized upon by aliens.

True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way.

You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, Beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.

**Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a
handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus
Christ. ** --Apud Caillau and Guillou, Coll. Selecta Ss. Eccl. Patrum, vol. 32, pp. 411-412

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Unfortunately, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI teach exactly what was condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus. Not only the one I quoted above, at least one more formally condemned error.

How is teaching positively, a formally condemned error, not heresy?If it is heresy, why would you consider them part of your Church? I thought that heresy severed someone from the body of the Church.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics…"
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

You have that exactly backwards. The Arian heresy worked its way into the Church in such a way that, according to Fr. Jurgins who edited Faith of Our Fathers, between 97 and 99 percent of the Bishops were, in reality, Arian heretics. These were the Bishop in union with the Pope. No excommunicated Bishops.

If heresy severs a person from the Church, and the Arian bishops held heresies publicly, they were not real bishops but were outside the Church. This means that there were very few Catholic Clergy in those days.

I’ll give you a quote from St. Athanasius who was, by all appearances, an excommunicated Schismatic. He was
excommunicated by Pope Liberius and in exile from his diocese; yet in the end he was canonized, and Pope Liberius was the first Pope not to be.

Two popes say that Liberius was falsely accused, he was actually very holy and refused to Condemn St. Athanasius.
Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 16), January 6, 1873, On False Accusations: “And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy.”
Pope Benedict XV, Principi Apostolorum Petro (# 3), Oct. 5, 1920: “Indeed, lest they should prove faithless from their duty, some went fearlessly into exile, as did Liberius and Silverius and Martinus.”

 

[Hesychios]

This is a most interesting discussion!

 

[ForMary]

IF I understand you right, then you are aserting that many Bishops, post Vatican Two, are in heresy, including the Popes since this time?
How did Papal Infalibility fail, if the Holy Spirit prevents error?

Papal Infallibility is one thing and is presumably inspired by the errorless Holy Spirit, according to Vatican I.

The Pope himself; is another thing, he is a human being and is fallible.

SSPX, The Old Catholic Church, and other schisms created post ecumenical councils are not unique, they simply are.

In some instances a sympathetic Pope provides an avenue for reconciliation, in some they remain either heretics or without benefit of communion with the Church.

Additionally, it should be noted that “Papal Infallibility” has only been used (to my knowledge) **once **since its declaration, although there may have been ex cathedra (intention of infallibility) declarations made.

 

[Genesis315]

The charism of infallibility applies only to definitive judgments on doctrine. Not everything the Pope says (or that he confirms of an ecumenical Council), even in his office of Supreme Teacher, has a definitive and prescriptive quality to it.

I don’t think the SSPX has any problem with such definitive teachings–I am quite sure they accept the definitive teachings confirmed and proclaimed by John Paul II that the priesthood is reserved to men alone or that abortion is intrinsically evil, for example.

Their main problem is with some magisterial texts lacking such a prescriptive and definitive character.

 

[guedry7]

I am trying to find if the link of papal succession was broken. I read up on the Arian heresy. I found the question of the divinity of Christ and the question of the Holy Spirit. I found the imperial tradition associated with the pontifex maximus title. I found Constantine, Constantine the second,Constans,Constantious the second, Julian the Apostate, Jovian, Valentinian, Valens, Gratian, Theodosius. I found Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia. I found Athanatious and Hilary of Pointiers. I found Basil and the Young Nicenes. I found Popes Julius and Liberius defending those who fought for the divinity of Christ. I found the Councils of Nicaea, Milan ( the Pope rejected it ),and Constantinople. I found the Rimini-Seleucia double synob. I found rivals between East and West. But what was most noticeable I found a New Freedom of the Church. The Church being alleviated of the external threat of persecutions cuold speek freely about rivaling ideas The Councils, with the guidance of the holy Spirit, got it right. Eventhough the Emperors were more concerned with unity than maybe what was true, and lots of Bishops falling in line with the Emperors decisions. In conclusion I found The Church doing What she’s always done, defend the truth.

 

[guedry7]

Papal Infallibility is one thing and is presumably inspired by the errorless Holy Spirit, according to Vatican I.

The Pope himself; is another thing, he is a human being and is fallible.

SSPX, The Old Catholic Church, and other schisms created post ecumenical councils are not unique, they simply are.

In some instances a sympathetic Pope provides an avenue for reconciliation, in some they remain either heretics or without benefit of communion with the Church.

Additionally, it should be noted that “Papal Infallibility” has only been used (to my knowledge) **once **since its declaration, although there may have been ex cathedra (intention of infallibility) declarations made.

Ok. I beter understand Papal Infalibility. Do SSPX believe B16, JP2 and JP1 continue the line of Peter?