A
a83192
Guest
What does the SSPX believe in Church state relations? I know that the document Dignitatis Humanae is a sore spot with them.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
That the state is bound to uphold and support the Church and Catholic morality in the public sphere. Which is essentially the Church’s teaching, and even DH acknowledges that.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Probably what the Church believes. I don’t know a ton about the SSPX, but maybe their interpreting DH’s use of “religious freedom” as meaning what liberals mean by the same phrase could be the problem.What does the SSPX believe in Church state relations? I know that the document Dignitatis Humanae is a sore spot with them.
G
godisgood77
Guest
Better question is what does the Church believe. Unless you intend to be in less than full communion with the Church, of course…
G
Genesis315
Guest
The main problem of the SSPX in this regard boils down to the false dichotomy they create between the “thesis” (the ideal) and the “hypothesis” (the application of universal principles to concrete circumstances to achiece the greatest good). Here’s a good article on the thesis-hypothesis relationship (the article is part of a larger article on Bishop Dupanloup’s commentary on the Syllabus, which was praised by Pope Bl. Pius IX himself):
opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/08/intervention-of-mgr-dupanloup-part-ii_9240.html
The SSPX confuse a bunch of things in this area: they look at certain 19th century condemnations of bad theses as well as absolutist propositions which do not admit other hypotheses and misinterpret them to assert contrary theses and absolutist propositions, and as a result the turn some hypotheses into theses and/or do not admit the good of other hypotheses. Along these same lines, they also misinterptet certain condemnations to assert the contrary rather than merely the contradictory.
Here’s the larger article on Bishop Dupanloup’s commentary, which addressed these misinterpretations over a century ago:
opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/08/intervention-of-mgr-dupanloup-part-i.html
Also see Bl. John Henry Newman on the encyclical Quanta Cura and the Syllabus, where he applies these same proper principles:
newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section6.html
newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section7.html
opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/08/intervention-of-mgr-dupanloup-part-ii_9240.html
The SSPX confuse a bunch of things in this area: they look at certain 19th century condemnations of bad theses as well as absolutist propositions which do not admit other hypotheses and misinterpret them to assert contrary theses and absolutist propositions, and as a result the turn some hypotheses into theses and/or do not admit the good of other hypotheses. Along these same lines, they also misinterptet certain condemnations to assert the contrary rather than merely the contradictory.
Here’s the larger article on Bishop Dupanloup’s commentary, which addressed these misinterpretations over a century ago:
opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/08/intervention-of-mgr-dupanloup-part-i.html
Also see Bl. John Henry Newman on the encyclical Quanta Cura and the Syllabus, where he applies these same proper principles:
newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section6.html
newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section7.html
C
Cider
Guest
Nobody here speaks for the SSPXWhat does the SSPX believe in Church state relations? I know that the document Dignitatis Humanae is a sore spot with them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.