Take the SSPX challenge

[yosupman]

If at Vatican II no infallible statements were made, why do some ultra-traditional folks think Vatican II taught heresy? The Pope can’t intend not to define a new doctrine, and then define one, such as a heretical statement from the chair of peter.

Also I challenge anybody to prove to me any Pope has taught heresy from the chair of peter in his official magisterium. I’m not talking about as a private theologian, or in a sermon.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

If at Vatican II no infallible statements were made, why do some ultra-traditional folks think Vatican II taught heresy? The Pope can’t intend not to define a new doctrine, and then define one, such as a heretical statement from the chair of peter.

Also I challenge anybody to prove to me any Pope has taught heresy from the chair of peter in his official magisterium. I’m not talking about as a private theologian, or in a sermon.

Well said…I assist at an SSPX chapel.

It seems to me to be certain that the Council Fathers, being assured that anythiong written would be interpreted in light of Tradition, that one can find a way…even in the Documents on Religious Liberty…to reconcile them with the grave warnings given by the popes of the previous centuries against false liberty and separation of church and state. Vatican II, in my opinion, will emerge compatible with everything in the Syllabus of Errors of Bl. Pius IX.

Now, I am not saying myself that the Syllabus was guarded by papal infallibility. But I am confident that it reflected the Church’s teaching for centuries which canonized great Catholic kings and queens who helped to establish the faith in thier realms, understanding the need for the faith to permeate the laws of the State. That is why I believe the Syllabus when it touches on some of the controversy about “religious liberty”. There is no question about forcing anyone’s faith. That amount of liberty can be taken for granted and proven to be a part of magesterial teaching.

There are some Catholics whose ideas seem to stem more from the French and American revolutions than from the Syllabus of Errors or the glorious history of the Catholic Monarchies. These novel views were vitually unthought of and unknown before the 18th Century. They are incompatible in my opinion, with the history of a Church that claims continuity with the Apostles. I believe that IF Vatican II is guarded by infallibility, its teachings will reflect this Catholic Tradition. Or, if Vatican II teaches that the Syllabus of Errors was wrong, then we will discover that Vatican II was fallible in that specific instance at least. I can go either way, and I have the utmost faith that one of the scenarios in the true one. Time will tell.

PS: I don’t think any pope has taught ex cathedra heresy! I don’t think you’ll find anyone following the path of the founder of the Society of St. Pius X who could possibly propose that. Some are more outraged at sermons and private teachings than others. But never have I heard it proposed that any pope has failed while speaking from the Chair of Peter.

 

[ProVobis]

If at Vatican II no infallible statements were made, why do some ultra-traditional folks think Vatican II taught heresy?

There were no NEW infallible statements made at Vatican II. If there were any contradictions between Vatican II documents and Church doctrine, I’m sure they’ll be ironing those out at the current meetings between the SSPX bishops and the Vatican. Maybe we should wait for the outcome of those meetings before we start any more discussions on “SSPX thinks this or that is heresy.” Things and beliefs can change.

 

[gentle_atheist]

Also I challenge anybody to prove to me any Pope has taught heresy from the chair of peter in his official magisterium. I’m not talking about as a private theologian, or in a sermon.

You’ve got to admit that the Protestants are right when they say that there is no infallible list of infallible papal teachings, making it virtually impossible to prove that a pope taught error. Take the Galileo affair, for example.

But even when you do find a teaching that everyone agrees is ex cathedra it can be re-interpreted to the point where its words no longer have any meaning. Take Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, for example.

 

[Toribus]

Mr Atheist, forgive me for my ignorance, but when you mention the “Galileo Affair” I missed the bit where papal infallibility was relevant. Could you please explain?

Anthony OPL

 

[gentle_atheist]

Mr Atheist, forgive me for my ignorance, but when you mention the “Galileo Affair” I missed the bit where papal infallibility was relevant. Could you please explain?

Anthony OPL

Oh, boy. I didn’t mean to start a big thing about Galileo. I used to be Catholic and one of my defenses against the Protestants was that geocentricism was not an ex cathedra teaching. Nevertheless, Galileo was condemned by the Church for teaching heliocentricism, which the Church correctly pointed out is contrary to Sacred Scripture. And his books were banned by the Church for 200 years.

The Protestants conveniently forget that their leaders at the time also condemned heliocentricism because it is contrary to the Bible.

As a Catholic I used to fantasize about what it would have been like if the Church had embraced Galileo’s teachings. The Protestants would have condemned the Church for going against the plain words of Scripture, which clearly teaches geocentricism. Then the Protestants would have had their comeuppance when heliocentricism was proven right. It would have been as if God were saying, “The Bible will do you no good without the Catholic Church to interpret it.” Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.

 

[yosupman]

You’ve got to admit that the Protestants are right when they say that there is no infallible list of infallible papal teachings, making it virtually impossible to prove that a pope taught error. Take the Galileo affair, for example.

We certainly know what the infallible teachings of the church have been. Look at a majority of the councils, and their teaching. Lets start with the last council that taught infallibly was Vatican I.

Also the pope and bishops teach infallibly when the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are in agreement a doctrine is to be infallibly held.

Look at the catechism of the Catholic church paragraphs 891 thru like 894. Then look at I think paragraphs 2034-2035,

This talk that there is no “infallible list” of infallible teachings is semantics.

But even when you do find a teaching that everyone agrees is ex cathedra

I have to say, you are right. Anyone can re-interprest a Dogma to mean what-ever they want. But the church does not do so. When the church has delcared a Dogma, the church will never recant the meaning and sense the church intended that Dogma. Doctrine can develop, but the it does not nullify the original meaning.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - Ok, I challenge you, gentle athiest to prove to me that you understand how the church has held what Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus means. It’s easy to create a straw man, and then destroy it.

Real challenge - prove to me that the church has not taught the resurection of Christ.

 

[gentle_atheist]

From the Catechism:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. **Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337**

Don’t you think that this reduces Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus to a meaningless formula, as Pius XII warned?

Real challenge - prove to me that the church has not taught the resurection of Christ.

I never said that she didn’t teach the Resurrection. What’s your point?

 

[yosupman]

The church has never changed her teaching on “Outside the Church there is no salvation”. The church implicitly and now explicitly has always held that you must be a member of the church to be saved. How do we become a member of the church?

1.) Baptism of desire - you have never heard of Christ, or do not understand the teaching of the church, but you follow the moral law, and would be a Catholic if you new about the faith.

2.) Regular baptism

3.) Baptism of Blood - you die for the faith before you were officially baptized.

I think if you look at the catechism, it teaches just what I said. Also the Baltimore Catechsim does also (it was created back in the 19th century).

The resurection - my point on this, is the Church holds that Christ was resurected from the dead. This is a Dogma. No pope or council approved by the Pope will officially teach different from this. This is a classic case of infallibility at work.

 

[gentle_atheist]

The church has never changed her teaching on “Outside the Church there is no salvation”. The church implicitly and now explicitly has always held that you must be a member of the church to be saved. How do we become a member of the church?

1.) Baptism of desire - you have never heard of Christ, or do not understand the teaching of the church, but you follow the moral law, and would be a Catholic if you new about the faith.

Baptism of desire was always understood to mean explicit desire to be baptized. The catechumen who died before before being baptized, for example. Or a Jew who wanted to be baptized but could not find anyone to baptize him, so he plunged himself into a pool of water in an attempt to baptize himself.

What the Catholic Church has done is combine two teachings – Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance – to come up with a new teaching: the Baptism of Desire of the Invincibly Ignorant. Thus a Jew or Moslem or pagan no longer needs to explicitly desire to be baptized. In fact, he can explicitly refuse to be baptized. But he is still a member of the Catholic Church provided he would want to be baptized if he knew that baptism was necessary for his salvation. Well, who wouldn’t want that? Who would say that they would prefer to burn in hell for all eternity rather than be baptized?

And what about the fate of unbaptized babies? If an adult Jew or Moslem can be saved by this new teaching then shouldn’t unbaptized babies be first in line?

 

[ProVobis]

And what about the fate of unbaptized babies? If an adult Jew or Moslem can be saved by this new teaching then shouldn’t unbaptized babies be first in line?

Behind the unborn babies.

 

[gentle_atheist]

Behind the unborn babies.

One thing that the Catholic Church can be proud of is that her moral teachings haven’t changed. And that’s the most important thing of all.

 

[yosupman]

Baptism of desire was always understood to mean explicit desire to be baptized. The catechumen who died before before being baptized, for example. Or a Jew who wanted to be baptized but could not find anyone to baptize him, so he plunged himself into a pool of water in an attempt to baptize himself.

What the Catholic Church has done is combine two teachings – Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance – to come up with a new teaching: the Baptism of Desire of the Invincibly Ignorant. Thus a Jew or Moslem or pagan no longer needs to explicitly desire to be baptized. In fact, he can explicitly refuse to be baptized. But he is still a member of the Catholic Church provided he would want to be baptized if he knew that baptism was necessary for his salvation. Well, who wouldn’t want that? Who would say that they would prefer to burn in hell for all eternity rather than be baptized?

And what about the fate of unbaptized babies? If an adult Jew or Moslem can be saved by this new teaching then shouldn’t unbaptized babies be first in line?

The church has always taught that God is the judge of the human soul. The church can only teach in objective terms and not subjective. The church does not teach that if someone in their heart is living their life to the effect that they are rejecting God that this person will go to heaven. Baptism of desire means that the person in their heart is living in accord with what they know to be right, in the eyes of God. If that person were to die, even though they didn’t know about Christ, they would be saved. That is the objective teaching.

Another way to look at Baptism by desire, is the think of it in terms of the human will. God created us be be with him forever in Heaven. But he will not force Heaven on us. Also God is not unjust and will not condemn someone to hell who has not heard of Christ. If a non-Catholic is rejecting God in their life, by the choices they are making, then they are chosing Hell. If a non-Catholic is living by their conscience (in God’s eyes), God will know they are chosing Heaven. But only God can see into the Human heart, not you and me. We can only see the outward appearences.

Example: There may be person who is a good Catholic on the outside, but on the inside of their soul they reject a formal teaching of the church, and have a hidden vice. On the outside, they may “look saved”, but in reality, they are chosing hell.

On the other hand, a man may be a convicted bank robber. He is convicted and must spend 10 years in prison. On the outside, he looks damned to hell, but maybe he repented, and is sorry for what he did, and God has resotred him to grace.

There are so many examples, I couldn’t write about them all.

 

[yosupman]

Gentle athiest, here is another thing, if You know in your heart that the Catholic faith is the true faith, and you aren’t practicing, you’re coupable. But only God knows that. I take it as a positive thing that you’re having a conversation on papal infallibility. In fact, you work your way around the catechism to well to call yourself an athiest.

Babies - I’m looking at a 8 month year old right now… my daughter. She’s chewing on a baseball doll from the baseball hall of fame.

Unborn babies, or unbaptized babies that die. I know that God is not unjust. Also, even though Baptism is the normative way to baptize, God is not bound by the sacraments, and can make a way for babies to get into heaven. I obviously didn’t take a chance, and my daughter was baptized very soon after birth.

 

[DixitDominus]

One thing that the Catholic Church can be proud of is that her moral teachings haven’t changed. And that’s the most important thing of all.

gentle atheist, I just wanted to complement you on your attitude towards Catholicism. I’ve never met an atheist before who was so, quite frankly, “gentle” towards the Church!

 

[Toribus]

Mr Atheist,

It is true that the Church condemned Galileo’s insistence upon heliocentricism, but not simply because it was contrary to (the accepted interpretation of) Scripture.

Galileo initially promoted his heliocentric model as a scientific theory, saying that evidence would arise that proved him right. This kind of claim was common, and met no opposition. The problem was when Galileo started to insist that his model was not only true, but weighed on the faith of his fellows despite the lack of this evidence. It was yet impossible to make the observations necessary to prove or disprove his model, but Galileo insisted that people accept it anyway - in short, he made demands on people’s faith.

This is where the Church gets involved. Galileo may have been proven (sort of) right later on, but at the time he was making his claims (ie while he was alive) he had no way of proving them, and therefore could only insist that people have faith in him. By condemning Galileo, the Church actually did what Science does today.

Well, most of the time. Lately it has become fashionable to put ideology before evidence, as with evolutionary theory and anthropogenic global warming.

Anthony OPL

 

[ProVobis]

from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_heliocentrism

Philolaus (4th century BC) was also one of the first to hypothesize movement of the Earth, probably inspired by Pythagoras’ theories about a spherical globe. Aristarchus of Samos in the 3rd century BC had developed some theories of Heraclides Ponticus (speaking of a revolution by Earth on its axis) to propose what was, so far as is known, the first serious model of a heliocentric solar system. His work about a heliocentric system has not survived, so one may only speculate about what led him to his conclusions. It is notable that, according to Plutarch, a contemporary of Aristarchus accused him of impiety for “putting the Earth in motion.”

In the 13th-14th centuries, the Muslim astronomers, Mo’ayyeduddin Urdi, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, and Ibn al-Shatir, developed mathematical techniques similar to those used by Copernicus, and it has been suggested that Copernicus may have been influenced by them.[citation needed] Copernicus also discusses the theories of Al-Battani and Averroes in his major work. Several Muslim astronomers also had discussions on the possibility of heliocentrism, such as Ibn al-Haytham, Abu-Rayhan Biruni, Abu Said Sinjari, 'Umar al-Katibi al-Qazwini, and Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi.

Copernicus cited Aristarchus and Philolaus in an early manuscript of his book which survives, stating: “Philolaus believed in the mobility of the earth, and some even say that Aristarchus of Samos was of that opinion.” For reasons unknown (although possibly out of reluctance to quote pre-Christian sources), he did not include this passage in the publication of his book. Inspiration came to Copernicus not from observation of the planets, but from reading two authors. In Cicero he found an account of the theory of Hicetas. Plutarch provided an account of the Pythagoreans Heraclides Ponticus, Philolaus, and Ecphantes. These authors had proposed a moving earth, which did not, however, revolve around a central sun. Copernicus did not attribute his inspiration to Aristarchus as is sometimes stated. When Copernicus’ book was published, it contained an unauthorized preface by the Lutheran theologian Andreas Osiander. This cleric stated that Copernicus wrote his heliocentric account of the Earth’s movement as a mere mathematical hypothesis, not as an account that contained truth or even probability. Since Copernicus’ hypothesis was believed to contradict the Old Testament account of the sun’s movement around the earth (Joshua 99:99 = 6:12), this was apparently written to soften any religious backlash against the book. However, there is no evidence that Copernicus himself considered the heliocentric model as merely mathematically convenient, separate from reality.

For the development of the mathematics for his theory, it has been argued that Copernicus was also influenced by the work of Muslim astronomers, especially the works of Nasir al-Din Tusi (Tusi-couple), Mo’ayyeduddin Urdi (Urdi lemma) and Ibn al-Shatir.[1] Copernicus also cited the theories of Albategni (Al-Battani), Ibn Battuta, Arzachel (Al-Zarkali) and Averroes (Ibn Rushd) as influences on his major work,[citation needed] while the works of Ibn al-Haytham and Abu-Rayhan Biruni was also known in Europe at the time.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

If at Vatican II no infallible statements were made, why do some ultra-traditional folks think Vatican II taught heresy? The Pope can’t intend not to define a new doctrine, and then define one, such as a heretical statement from the chair of peter.

Also I challenge anybody to prove to me any Pope has taught heresy from the chair of peter in his official magisterium. I’m not talking about as a private theologian, or in a sermon.

That is not an SSPX challenge because they SSPX does not make that claim. If anyone makes the claim it is the Sedevacantists, not the SSPX.

 

[yosupman]

That is not an SSPX challenge because they SSPX does not make that claim. If anyone makes the claim it is the Sedevacantists, not the SSPX.

I’m making a point. According to ultra-trads, Vatican II departed from Tradition. This is heresy.

 

[pnewton]

That is not an SSPX challenge because they SSPX does not make that claim.

Who knows what the SSPX believes? They do not have their own creed. As a society, they are diverse in their belief. I remember even once or twice when their website was quoted it was claimed that the statement was out of date and the SSPX no longer believed that. This is the very problem with any group that seeks to teach the Church instead of being taught by Her.

I have heard the claim and the contradition this thread speaks, but from different SSPX sources.