J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
Do not debate issues not related to the OP’s topic. If you wish to discuss other issues, please start new threads in the appropriate fora. Thank you.
- Status
J
jmj603
Guest
Neither the Vatican II Council nor any Pope ever has claimed that there is a right (in the Thomistic sense) to choose a false religion. On this point, the SSPX insists on refusing the obvious and plain reading of, for example, Dignitatis Humanae:
Some prelates and academics–on the opposite side–have joined the SSPX in their erroneous interpretation, to cause great mischief within the Church. This is what Pope Benedict XVI called the “hermeneutic of discontinuity”.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Quote=mdstanzelHey, it seems like the thing to do. Let’s make our own schimatic group. I’m sure the Vatican won’t mind. I’m not sure if SSPX know what fellowship is. Being a cafateria Catholic seems to be in vogue.
Pick a council you don’t like and…well get rid of it.
Let me stretch this further, if you get away with this argument in its present form, then I would argue that we not only need to do away with infallability but with all current practices, including the TLM (licit or illicit). I believe we should go back to the last eccumenical councel before the Great Schism so that we can rebuild the bridges that the leaders back then burned. I think we should go back to St. John Chrysotom’s Divine Liturgy. I am a Catholic with Orthodox tendencies. But if I can be obedient to the Pope, then why can’t SSPX? Because they are stubborn and their conciences are darkened with pride.
Weren’t you the one who said to go back to the last council before the Great Schism. It would seem you have more of a problem with councils than what you attribute to the SSPX.
I am not sure how you pledge “obedience” to the Pope—when you believe in getting rid of a council —that defined the office of the papacy.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
If you are interpreting DH to mean that man only has a right to the true religion, then I agree. After all, man has a duty to submit to God and obey the first commandment, therefore he has a duty to follow the religion reveraled by God, and thus the right to do so. Remember, our rights flow from and are associated with our duties. Just as man has the duty to educate his children and therefoe the right to do so, so too he has the duty to follow the true religion, and therefore the God given right to do it, regardless of what an Athiestic State may say to the contrary.
So, if you are saying that DH is teaching that man has a right to follow the truth, unimpeeded, than I agree with you. But what about the part of DH that was snuck unto the document without the council Fathers knowing about it (ask me for evidence to back up that statement) - the part that says man has a right to religious liberty even when he is not following the truth? The following is the quote with the part that was snuck in underlined…
Vatican II, DH: "The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right…
Let’s stop here for a moment. If the document means that those who belong to the true religion should have a civil right to practice it, then I agree completely. But if that is what is meant, what are we to make of the following?..
Vatican II, DH: “It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person [that is, in one that is seeking the truth], but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded…”.
So, according to that, a person who is not living up to his duty of following the truth, should be protected by law by being granted a “civil right” to practice his false religion!
see next…
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
continuation
It says that the foundation for this right is found in the nature of man. But this is to grant man a right that is contrary to God’s law. No one has the right to violate the first commandment, any more than they have the right to violate the 5th, or 6th, or 9th.
This is what the Church, through Pope Pius IX and Pope Gregory XVI, said about religious liberty being granted as a civil right. Please compare the following decree with the above quote from Vatican II…
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#'s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, namely, that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society.’ But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition. Therefore, by our apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular evil opinions and doctrines specially mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all the children of the Catholic Church as reprobate, proscribed and condemned.”
If you want to start a thread to discuss this, I would be happy to. I agree that dignitatis Humanae can be interpreted in a way that is not contrary to what the Church teaches. It looks like it is contradicting what the Church teaches, but most of it (except for the paragraph that was inserted without anyone knowing) can be interpreted correctly.
But it is difficult to interpret correctly since it gives the impression of teaching what it doesn’t actually say. It looks like it is saying that each man has the right to religious liberty, when in can be interpreted to mean that only Catholics (who belong to the true religion) have the right to religious liberty.
There is a very good reason why so many Bishops have misinterpreted this document. And the reason is that it appears on the surface to say what it really doesn’t say (except for the one paragraph I mentioned).
Basically, it can be interpreted either way. If you know what the Church teaches, then you can interpret the document correctly. If you don’t have a solid grasp of the teaching of the Church you will, without a doubt, misunderstand what the document says.
It says that the foundation for this right is found in the nature of man. But this is to grant man a right that is contrary to God’s law. No one has the right to violate the first commandment, any more than they have the right to violate the 5th, or 6th, or 9th.
This is what the Church, through Pope Pius IX and Pope Gregory XVI, said about religious liberty being granted as a civil right. Please compare the following decree with the above quote from Vatican II…
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#'s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, namely, that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society.’ But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition. Therefore, by our apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular evil opinions and doctrines specially mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all the children of the Catholic Church as reprobate, proscribed and condemned.”
If you want to start a thread to discuss this, I would be happy to. I agree that dignitatis Humanae can be interpreted in a way that is not contrary to what the Church teaches. It looks like it is contradicting what the Church teaches, but most of it (except for the paragraph that was inserted without anyone knowing) can be interpreted correctly.
But it is difficult to interpret correctly since it gives the impression of teaching what it doesn’t actually say. It looks like it is saying that each man has the right to religious liberty, when in can be interpreted to mean that only Catholics (who belong to the true religion) have the right to religious liberty.
There is a very good reason why so many Bishops have misinterpreted this document. And the reason is that it appears on the surface to say what it really doesn’t say (except for the one paragraph I mentioned).
Basically, it can be interpreted either way. If you know what the Church teaches, then you can interpret the document correctly. If you don’t have a solid grasp of the teaching of the Church you will, without a doubt, misunderstand what the document says.
M
mdstanzel
Guest
I assure you everyone that I am very orthodox Catholic. I’m throwing out some pretty bizzar stuff that sounds a bizzar as the SSPX.
Taking my thoughts further, why not reject all the councils as heresy.
On another board I argued from where I was at one point outside of the Catholic Church that by throwing out Catholiicsm and then reallizing the illogical conclusion that many non-Catholic Christians come to believe, why not throw out any New Testament scripture not written by one of the original Apostles. That is throw out Paul’s letters. Throw out Luke and Mark. Throw out Acts. Go on and one until you only have Matthew, John, 1&2Peter, 1,2 & maybe 3 John, Revelations (probabaly not because he gives all kinds of crazy stuff that doesn’t make sense.)…Anyway it’s just not the in line with the Teaching of the Church.I don’t know if you see where I was taking this to. But the reason I don’t make sense is because rebellious logic never sounds logical.
The SSPX claim to hold true to the TRUE Teachings of the Church, but the reject the TRUE Teachings of the Church by the fact that they reject Vatican II. I love our Orthodox Christian friends and understand on many levels how they believe what they believe. However, like the SSPX I see them in the same light. But I try not to be rude about it just like I will learn not to be rude with the SSPX heretics.
I don’t think they’re heretics. But I do think they are clearly in the wrong. They actions might even get them what they want. The question is will that really be good for the faith. Maybe their desires will put is in more termoil than we already are.I plan to do some research on the early Church that they claim to be like. Although that resistance may have guided the Church back to center, it probably would have steered back to center without that group as well. That may be a valid argument that must be dealt with. If this arguement can be validated then the SSPX have nothing to stand on but corrupted consciences rooted in false pride and little trust in God. I will work on this.
I’m PMing Cat that I am orthodox in my Catholic faith and sorry for hijacking his thread. I was actually planning on starting my own thread to guide it down my line of thinking, but he beat me to the punch.
Us Tiber swimmers need to stick together.
It’s a fellowship thing. I have a very long story that I should write about in conjuction with my wife’s story. Look for us on EWTN one day - joking. But we really do have an awesome story to pass down to our children. I’m beginning to read a little into why the RCIA crowd along with many priests have said that it will probably be the Protestant converts that save the Church of it’s own members. But I’m just reading into it.Cat, thanks for starting this thread. You’d never know I took logic in college. But I’m not bad at it. I made an “A” at the seminary. I’m really going to bow out of this discussion as soon as I can manage to stop getting notified and tempted to post. I’m addicted
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
But what teachings of the Church does the SSPX reject? Be specific. Don’t be vague and say “they reject Vatican II”. What exactly do they reject about Vatican II?
The position of the SSPX with regard to Vatican II is that they accept it in light of Tradition, which means they accept the ambiguously worded documents according to what the Church has always taught; and it if happens that a sentence or two is contrary to what the Church has always taught, and in fact teaches the contrary, then they reject that particular sentence.
According to Paul VI, Vatican II was merely a pastoral council that did not engage the extraordinary magesterium. What does that mean? It means that it is within the realm of possibility that the documents of Vatican II could have contained an error, since the Pope is only protected from error when He engages the extraordinary magisterium.
In addition to the extraordinary infallibility, there is also what is known as “ordinary infallibility”. This means that what the Church has always taught it to be considered infallible, even if it was not defined infallibly by the Pope. But, obviously, these teachings of the ordinary magisterium cannot be novel, or new, teachings. They must be what the Church has always taught.
So, if the Church has always taught this or that doctrine, and has explicitly condemned the contrary; if Vatican II teaches that which has been condemned, and which is contrary to what the Church has always taught, obviously this is not an infallible teaching. And if this did take place, would it be wrong for someone to reject that previously-condemned-teaching in favor of what the Church has always taught?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I assure you everyone that I am very orthodox Catholic. I’m throwing out some pretty bizzar stuff that sounds a bizzar as the SSPX.
Taking my thoughts further, why not reject all the councils as heresy.
I don’t know if you see where I was taking this to. But the reason I don’t make sense is because rebellious logic never sounds logical.
The SSPX claim to hold true to the TRUE Teachings of the Church, but the reject the TRUE Teachings of the Church by the fact that they reject Vatican II. I love our Orthodox Christian friends and understand on many levels how they believe what they believe. However, like the SSPX I see them in the same light. But I try not to be rude about it just like I will learn not to be rude with the SSPX heretics.
I plan to do some research on the early Church that they claim to be like. Although that resistance may have guided the Church back to center, it probably would have steered back to center without that group as well. That may be a valid argument that must be dealt with. If this arguement can be validated then the SSPX have nothing to stand on but corrupted consciences rooted in false pride and little trust in God. I will work on this.
I’m PMing Cat that I am orthodox in my Catholic faith and sorry for hijacking his thread. I was actually planning on starting my own thread to guide it down my line of thinking, but he beat me to the punch.
Us Tiber swimmers need to stick together.
Cat, thanks for starting this thread. You’d never know I took logic in college. But I’m not bad at it. I made an “A” at the seminary. I’m really going to bow out of this discussion as soon as I can manage to stop getting notified and tempted to post. I’m addicted
I have not come across any document from the Holy See that refers to the SSPX as heretics or not being Catholic. It has become apparent that you ---- on your own have felt you are in a position to make a judgement that our own Holy See has not.
T
trth_skr
Guest
In ecclesia dei, JPII notified Lefebvre and the 4 bishops he consecrated without permission that they were excommunicated latae sententiae(which means basically they brought it on themselves, it was not an act of JPII explicitkly, but rather they triggered a mechanism built into canon law):
*ecclesia dei [/quote said:
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I am familiar with the info you provided. Yet—no where—have they been referred to as heretics.
Now—something has been on my mind. How could the Pope determine—what was in Arch. Lefebrve (sp)—heart mind and soul—that led to the consecration of the other bishops.
How could our late Pope know—if Lefebrve (sp) intention was outright disobedience or an act of desperation—from experienceing the tormoil and seeing what was (and is) happening to the Church. Only God himself knows.
S
Seminarian_Matt
Guest
Exactly. Canon Law allows the consecration of bishops in serious circumstances or even when the main celebrant believes there to be serious circumstances. As you said, only God Himself knows.
B
BobP123
Guest
The said papal announcement WAS NOT STATED IN ANY DECREE which would have had some greater force of law, as I mentioned in my earlier post. The “necessity” clause of Canon Law of 1983 which the Archbishop used in his defense may not have even been necessary. But I’m not a Canon lawyer who has been presented with all the facts. And no one here has. Only a bunch of hearsays, mostly aimed to slander the now-deceased Archbishop. (Is the sin of slander not taught in RCIA anymore?)
SSPX would not determine how to end the irregular relationship, the Holy Father would. It’s not like the SSPX have to find a diocese to belong to, as priests would. They are bishops in their own right, but they would need an Apostolic Administration and that can be done only through the Pope. The MP appears to be the first step toward this full communion.
Again, though, this is an INTERNAL matter for the bishops (and their priests) and Rome to settle. This was already stated by Cardinal Hoyos. One can very much attend SSPX if he or she chooses to satisfy his Sabbath obligation as long as he or she does not develop a schismatic mindset.
J
jmj603
Guest
Part of the document affirms the unchangeable teaching on the right to worship the true God. Part of the document expresses a changed attitude regarding the ordering of civil society, because of massive changes in the political ordering of all civil societies in the world in the time since, for example, the publication of Quanta Cura in 1864. The changed attitude is in regards to freedom from coercion by civil authority in certain religious matters.
The SSPX’s polemics on this subject distort the true, plain meaning of the document and its effects.
To repeat my original questions to you, which you ignored:
B
bear06
Guest
Remember that the next time a liberal bishop feels he has serious circumstance to do something he’s been told not to do.
Seriously, there can really be no schismatics at all anywhere because all they needed was to feel they had serious reason to do what they did. Please. You can’t have it both ways.This wasn’t a willy nilly decision. This decision to consecrate the bishops was made after many discussions with the Vatican on the subject. The Vatican said that one was necessary. The Vatican, and I know it’s hard to believe, is the arbiter of this necessity
This wasn’t done in a situation where the bishop didn’t have counsel with his superior. The pope was not incommunicado. The bishop wasn’t in the middle of a jungle with no communication with the outside world. He didn’t suddenly think that he was the only living bishop left and that he must do something about it - or did he?
B
BobP123
Guest
Can’t argue with Canon Law. By the way the 1983 Canon Law was not written overnight. It was at least 20 years in the brewing. So if you want it changed, maybe our grandkids will see the day.Remember that the next time a liberal bishop feels he has serious circumstance to do something he’s been told not to do.
Having said that, if the French bishops leave the Church as they are threatening to do, I don’t know if there’s a Canon Law to stop them. The Archbishop, on the other hand, made no such threats to anyone’s knowledge.
B
bear06
Guest
Can’t argue with Canon Law. By the way the 1983 Canon Law was not written overnight. It was at least 20 years in the brewing. So if you want it changed, maybe our grandkids will see the day.
No but I can argue with private intepretation of canon law. There is a nice little group that gets to do the interpreting besides the Holy Father himself - Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.
Pete Vere has done this one to death. He explains to us non-canon law types:
G
gorman64
Guest
There’s also a thing called Divine Law…a Doctor of the Church describes it here:
While Canon Law may be against the position of the SSPX…Divine Law still covers everyone…even your heretical Novus Ordo Bishops. Why can’t you give them the same level of scrutiny that you give these SSPX Bishops?
Gorman
B
bear06
Guest
That would be my point, Gorman (although you think all Novus Ordo Bishops are heretical since you are a sedevacantist). Most here are not going to apply the law the same way for the liberals as they are for Lefebvre. If a liberal bishop tried to use “thought I had serious reason” they’d never go for it. I’m advocating letting the supreme legislator, the one who actually has the authority to legislate, do the legislating. Purely outrageous position, isn’t it?
T
trth_skr
Guest
BTW- I am not sure why you said that to me, but for the record, I am not stating that the SSPX are heretics.
I am simply trying to summarize the situation the SSPX is currently in. I stll think this article by Brian Mershon is a good summary:
What is the Status of the SSPX?
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
G
gorman64
Guest
bear06 said:
Actually, Bear, you’ve gotten it backwards… I am a sedevacantist because the bishops and “pope” are heretics. And no, your position is far from outrageous and it would be the correct one…too bad there’s no authority to legislate.
Look at the conciliar church’s own position on the SSPX…it nothing but confusing…and I suspect that’s on purpose.
Do you really think that these bishops are unaware of the heresy being taught in their catechism classes, and that some kind of crass and criminal ignorance excuses them? The “pass” you’re giving them is truly outrageous.
Gorman
- Status