The SSPX and relgious liberty

[LexCatholic]

Hello everyone I am very new to the forums but I have been observing for a while. The reason I ask this question is because I have a real interest in the tlm and the sspx.
From what I understand ArchBishop Lefebre received what he wanted from Pope John Paul II ( rest in peace). But the ArchBishop started acting independantly of the vatican by ordaining bishops, setting up independant chapels etc. His reasons for doing so were his belief that religious liberty and ecumenism are not catholic. If this is true how does the sspx’s view on religious liberty differ from that of the vatican and the catholic church.

 

[dbacks5439]

Marcel Lefebvre did not like the idea of non Catholics having a chance of salvation. He was adherent to St. Cyprian’s view of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. He did sign the conciliar document on religious liberty out of respect for the Church, but most of it he disagreed with. Many SSPX’ers will claim the document promotes relativism. What’s right for you is right for you, what’s right for me is right for me. As Catholics, we see our seperated brethren as outside the Church, but since they have retained some of the Truth, salvation might be possible for them. St. Cyprian did not have Orthodox or Protestants in his time, so his view is different from our current view. Development of doctrine is critical here, and Archbishop Lefebvre recognized that. He just didn’t think it should have been applied to EENS.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Hello everyone I am very new to the forums but I have been observing for a while. The reason I ask this question is because I have a real interest in the tlm and the sspx.
From what I understand ArchBishop Lefebre received what he wanted from Pope John Paul II ( rest in peace). But the ArchBishop started acting independantly of the vatican by ordaining bishops, setting up independant chapels etc. His reasons for doing so were his belief that religious liberty and ecumenism are not catholic. If this is true how does the sspx’s view on religious liberty differ from that of the vatican and the catholic church.

The archbishop, I think it is fair to say, rejected the Second Vatican Council. When any organisation of any description has a meeting to make important decisions, you’ll find someone who disagrees, not infrequently who refuses to accept that they ahve been over-ruled.

The archbishop went beyond this by ordaining bishops without permission. His motive was that the SSPX should not be deprived of a bishop after his death. That act was schismatic, and it was for this, not for his opinions of the Council, that he was excommunicated. The question about rights of a bishop versus the Pope and a Council is complicated; a bishop isn’t simply a prefect who relays papal instructions to the faithful, but neither is he a completely autonomous local religious authority.

 

[Genesis315]

He had problems with both those because he misunderstood them.

Concerning religious liberty, Lefebrve confused the teaching of the Council as the erroneous version professed by 19th century liberals rather the true Catholic version always taught. Likewise, he took the teaching of the Council on it which regarded social and practical necessities (which change depending on the times and circumstances) as teaching metaphysical truth. Pope Benedict explained this well in an address a while back on the continuity of the Council:

“We had to learn how to recognise that in such decisions only principles express what is lasting, embedded in the background and determining the decision from within. The concrete forms these decisions take are not permanent but depend upon the historical situations. They can therefore change. Thus, for example, with freedom of religion seen as expressing mankind’s inability to find truth, relativism becomes the canon. From being a social and historical necessity it is incorrectly elevated to a metaphysical level that loses its true meaning. It therefore becomes unacceptable to those who believe that mankind can reach the truth of God and, based on truth’s inner dignity, is related to such knowledge.”

 

[Genesis315]

I wrote a more in depth explanation on another forum which delves into Magisterial texts on the subject. See posts 4, 10, and 11 in this thread:

christianforums.com/t6374309

 

[MMLJ]

In order to fully comment, there must be explanations/notes as to the Second Vatican Council’s nature, i.e. Pastoral or Doctrinal. Also it would suffice to mention if Pope Paul VI said that the council was infallible. I have found that he did not.

**ADDRESS OF POPE PAUL VI
DURING THE LAST GENERAL MEETING
OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

7 December 1965**

But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.

From the Holy See website vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_epilogo-concilio_en.html

And reiterated it in 1966 ( L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. **In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” **

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

Marcel Lefebvre did not like the idea of non Catholics having a chance of salvation. He was adherent to St. Cyprian’s view of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. He did sign the conciliar document on religious liberty out of respect for the Church, but most of it he disagreed with. Many SSPX’ers will claim the document promotes relativism. What’s right for you is right for you, what’s right for me is right for me. As Catholics, we see our seperated brethren as outside the Church, but since they have retained some of the Truth, salvation might be possible for them. St. Cyprian did not have Orthodox or Protestants in his time, so his view is different from our current view. Development of doctrine is critical here, and Archbishop Lefebvre recognized that. He just didn’t think it should have been applied to EENS.

Actually that is not true. He even believed in “implicit baptism of desire.” If I had the relevant quote for you, you would be shocked. You are confusing Lefebvre with Fr. Feeny I believe. By the way, Vatican II didn’t change the Church’s teaching about salvation. One of the quotes from Lumen Gentium is almost word for word of Pius IX’s teaching on invincible ignorance. The problem with Vatican II is that it is often imprecise.

 

[GerardP]

The archbishop, I think it is fair to say, rejected the Second Vatican Council.

That’s rather simplistic and not really fair. The archbishop didn’t take any actions during the council and for five years after the council until he could see the “fruits of Vatican II.” He’d quietly retired prior to establishing the SSPX.

The archbishop went beyond this by ordaining bishops without permission.

Again, a simplistic explanation for a much more complicated situation. Also, bishops are consecrated. They are ordained when they become priests. Anyone who studies the negotiations will see that LeFebvre and the Vatican had completely different ideas.

His motive was that the SSPX should not be deprived of a bishop after his death.

His motive was that the Church would be preserved from the corruption of the “spirit of Vatican II.”

That act was schismatic, and it was for this, not for his opinions of the Council, that he was excommunicated.

But according to Card. Hoyos the act was schismatic but it wasn’t an act of schism.

The excommunication was invalid because of this second reason given by St. Thomas Aquinas: “An excommunication may be unjust for two reasons…Secondly, on the part of the excommunication, through there being no proper cause, or through the sentence being passed without the forms of law being observed. In this case, if the error, on the part of the sentence, be such as to render the sentence void, this has no effect, for there is no excommunication;”

The question about rights of a bishop versus the Pope and a Council is complicated; a bishop isn’t simply a prefect who relays papal instructions to the faithful, but neither is he a completely autonomous local religious authority.

It’s not so much about the rights of the bishop as it is the duties and obligations of every bishop as a successor to the Apostles.

The problematic part comes in where the Successor of Peter falters in his performance and the successors to the Apostles have to make the choice between the Magisterium of the Church which is represented in the gospels when Peter walks on the water and on the other hand, the erroneous and dangerous policies of the Pope when he damages the Church which can be represented by Peter sinking in the waves because he took his eyes off of Christ because he paid too much attention to which way the wind was blowing.

 

[stmaria]

Of course the Church has always taught that no one can be forced to be Catholic and that other religious views must be tolerated for the common good but Is the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty about civil liberty or moral liberty?
Does a Mormon expressing his religious liberty, for instance, have a GOD-GIVEN right to go door to door and preach his religion?
Does a Protestant have a GOD-GIVEN right to preach that the Catholic Church is not the true religion and that the Eucharist is mere bread?
Does a man have a GOD-GIVEN right to follow his conscience if it will lead him to atheism
Why does the Declaration on Religious Liberty have only token footnotes from pre-Vatican II teachings. Libertas, Immortale Dei and Mystici Corpus are noted once yet Pope John XXXIII is referenced a dozen times?
If this is doctrine that has “evolved” where are the pre-Vatican II sources form which it evolved? Why isn’t Quanta Cura sited? Why isn’t Libertas sited a dozen times?

DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

 

[bear06]

[on another forum

Is that where you’ve been?! We’ve missed you!
[/quote]

 

[bear06]

Of course the Church has always taught that no one can be forced to be Catholic and that other religious views must be tolerated for the common good but Is the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty about civil liberty or moral liberty?
Does a Mormon expressing his religious liberty, for instance, have a GOD-GIVEN right to go door to door and preach his religion?
Does a Protestant have a GOD-GIVEN right to preach that the Catholic Church is not the true religion and that the Eucharist is mere bread?
Does a man have a GOD-GIVEN right to follow his conscience if it will lead him to atheism
Why does the Declaration on Religious Liberty have only token footnotes from pre-Vatican II teachings. Libertas, Immortale Dei and Mystici Corpus are noted once yet Pope John XXXIII is referenced a dozen times?
If this is doctrine that has “evolved” where are the pre-Vatican II sources form which it evolved? Why isn’t Quanta Cura sited? Why isn’t Libertas sited a dozen times?

DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

Did Adam and Eve have a God given right to disobey God?

 

[stmaria]

Did Adam and Eve have a God given right to disobey God?

No. Adam and Eve had the free will to disobey God but not a God-given right. Error has no rights.
You have free will to have an abortion but you do not have a God given right to have an abortion.

 

[TMC]

No. Adam and Eve had the free will to disobey God but not a God-given right. Error has no rights.
You have free will to have an abortion but you do not have a God given right to have an abortion.

Who gave them free will? Free will is God given. Freedom of religion is a God given right. The right to believe, not believe, attempt to convert others, etc., all God given. The right to choose sin and death is a God given right. God gave us the right to make all of these choices. That doesn’t mean that everyone makes the right choice, but God gives these rights. No one can deny any man these rights. They can be used well or abused, but the right comes from God. It is a primary feature of our Creation. Free Will is nothing if it is not the right to choose badly. The Free Will to do as you’re told is not Free Will. Free Will is one of the most important aspects of humanity. It is one of the ways in which we reflect His image.

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

Who gave them free will? Free will is God given. Freedom of religion is a God given right. The right to believe, not believe, attempt to convert others, etc., all God given. The right to choose sin and death is a God given right. God gave us the right to make all of these choices. That doesn’t mean that everyone makes the right choice, but God gives these rights. No one can deny any man these rights. They can be used well or abused, but the right comes from God. It is a primary feature of our Creation. Free Will is nothing if it is not the right to choose badly. The Free Will to do as you’re told is not Free Will. Free Will is one of the most important aspects of humanity. It is one of the ways in which we reflect His image.

I think what stmaria is trying to say is that error has no rights in a sense that is harmful to other people. If you are talking about “coercion” then sure, no one can or should be forced to believe that the Catholic Church is true or to be baptized/confess/etc. but that is quite different from saying that heresy and false religions have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parade around and spread their harmful influence on poor souls that might be decieved by them. That is the central issue. Of course DH has the phrase “within due limits” which would be its cop out but the fact that its emphasis is so strong on the right of error to coexist with truth should cause suspicion and alarm to faithful Catholics. It’s a question of emphasis. DH claims to uphold the traditional teachings but at the same time it turns around and introduces novel language about the rights of error. This is a document that is suppost to be a teaching document from the highest authority, even though John XXIII and Paul VI insisted that the Council was pastoral. Vatican II itself says that it is binding only when it claims to be binding, which I don’t know of any instance where it is. The day that the Holy Father abandons the failed pastoral experiment of Vatican II will be a day of true renewal.

 

[TMC]

I think what stmaria is trying to say is that error has no rights in a sense that is harmful to other people. If you are talking about “coercion” then sure, no one can or should be forced to believe that the Catholic Church is true or to be baptized/confess/etc. but that is quite different from saying that heresy and false religions have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parade around and spread their harmful influence on poor souls that might be decieved by them. That is the central issue. Of course DH has the phrase “within due limits” which would be its cop out but the fact that its emphasis is so strong on the right of error to coexist with truth should cause suspicion and alarm to faithful Catholics. It’s a question of emphasis. DH claims to uphold the traditional teachings but at the same time it turns around and introduces novel language about the rights of error. This is a document that is suppost to be a teaching document from the highest authority, even though John XXIII and Paul VI insisted that the Council was pastoral. Vatican II itself says that it is binding only when it claims to be binding, which I don’t know of any instance where it is. The day that the Holy Father abandons the failed pastoral experiment of Vatican II will be a day of true renewal.

There are a couple of things going on here. First, I think we would disagree on the nature and value of VII, but we should probably set that aside for a moment so as not to derail this conversation.

Second, maybe there are some semantics or different ways of looking at these issues that prevent us from agreeing more fully. I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that the right to error means that those who are in error are not bound by their error or that they will not be held responsible for their errors. Referring to my last post, the right to error is vital to Free Will. The free will to agree with authority, or even the free will to act and believe within a certain constrained set of options is not free will at all. Its like Henry Ford’s old saw that Model T’s come in any color you want as long as you want black. It is an illusory choice. God has given all men the capacity to choose freely, even to choose badly. It is an essential element in the dignity of man. We cannot suppose to try to revoke or restrain that gift. To do so reduces the inherent dignity of man.

That is not the same as agreeing that all choices have equal value, or that no choices are wrong, or that no choices have grave consequences.

We are called as Christians to treat all men with love and dignity, though, regardless of how badly they err. We are free to, and certainly should, point out their errors. But we have to do that with charity and dignity.

Also, although there are some matters in which we as Christians are convinced we possess the truth, we have to also approach life with humilty and accept that we do not posess all truth or perfect truth. This humility requires forbearance in some areas. In what areas is a tougher question, but we should all be able to acknowledge that we do not hold perfect truth in all areas. So the possibility exists that in at least some areas the error is ours.

I don’t see anything new in this teaching. It is put differently than it has been in the past. It professes more humility and more charity than some Church documents. It does not change the basic teaching on human free will, choice, and the possibility of error.

 

[bear06]

No. Adam and Eve had the free will to disobey God but not a God-given right. Error has no rights.
You have free will to have an abortion but you do not have a God given right to have an abortion.

Right! It’s Free Will. We have free will to choose God or reject him. I think this is more of a semantics argument. Like TMC said, nobody here is saying that we won’t have consequences for rejecting God but we do have Free will in making the decision and Free Will is God-given. People have Free Will to choose to preach that the Catholic Church is not the true religion and that the Eucharist is mere bread. This doesn’t mean that the choice is a good one but that we have a choice at all is God-given.

 

[stmaria]

=TMC;3042706]Who gave them free will? Free will is God given. Freedom of religion is a God given right. ** The right to believe, not believe, attempt to convert others**, etc., all God given.

You do not have a God given right to NOT believe in God. You do not have a God given right to be an atheist. You have free will to choose to believe or not to believe but it is not a right.
Do I have a God given right to have an abortion?

The right to choose sin and death is a God given right. God gave us the right to make all of these choices. That doesn’t mean that everyone makes the right choice, but God gives these rights. No one can deny any man these rights. They can be used well or abused, but the right comes from God

.
I have free will to go kill my neighbor, I do not have the right to do so. I have free will to choose sin, I do not have a right to do so. If it was a God-given right to sin then there could be no such thing as hell. Men only have a God given right to propagate the TRUTH not falsehood.

*Libertas *Pope Leo XIII
23,. For right is a moral power which – as We have before said and must again and again repeat – it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. **Men have a right **freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things so ever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but Iying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State

1. Another liberty is widely advocated, namely, liberty **of conscience. **If by this is meant that everyone may, as he chooses, worship God or not, it is sufficiently refuted by the arguments already adduced. But it may also be taken to mean that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands. This, indeed, is true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God, which nobly maintains the dignity of man and is stronger than all violence or wrong – a liberty which the Church has always desired and held most dear. This is the kind of liberty the Apostles claimed for themselves with intrepid constancy, which the apologists of Christianity confirmed by their writings, and which the martyrs in vast numbers consecrated by their blood "

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You do not have a God given right to NOT believe in God. You do not have a God given right to be an atheist. You have free will to choose to believe or not to believe but it is not a right.

The encyclical Libertas of Pope Leo XIII deals with this subject in great detail. He explains that a “right is a moral power”, and that man only has a “right” to do what is true and good. Man’s rights proceed from God, and God gives no man a “right” to violate his laws - including the first commandment.

God has given man free will, and therefore man has the ability to adhere to a false religion, or have an abortion, but this ability (free will) does not equate to a right.

There is natural liberty (free will), and moral liberty. Natural liberty enables us to do whatever we want; moral liberty sets the moral bounds for our natural liberty.

The reason we were given free will is so that we can choose good freely. If we use our free will to choose evil, it is an abuse of our natural liberty.

I would recommend the encyclical Libertas to everyone. It shines the light of truth on much of the confusion of our day

PS: I just noticed that you quoted Libertas above…

 

[TMC]

You do not have a God given right to NOT believe in God. You do not have a God given right to be an atheist. You have free will to choose to believe or not to believe but it is not a right.
Do I have a God given right to have an abortion?

I have free will to go kill my neighbor, I do not have the right to do so. I have free will to choose sin, I do not have a right to do so. If it was a God-given right to sin then there could be no such thing as hell. Men only have a God given right to propagate the TRUTH not falsehood.

*Libertas *Pope Leo XIII
23,. For right is a moral power which – as We have before said and must again and again repeat – it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. **Men have a right **freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things so ever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but Iying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State

1. Another liberty is widely advocated, namely, liberty **of conscience. **If by this is meant that everyone may, as he chooses, worship God or not, it is sufficiently refuted by the arguments already adduced. But it may also be taken to mean that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands. This, indeed, is true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God, which nobly maintains the dignity of man and is stronger than all violence or wrong – a liberty which the Church has always desired and held most dear. This is the kind of liberty the Apostles claimed for themselves with intrepid constancy, which the apologists of Christianity confirmed by their writings, and which the martyrs in vast numbers consecrated by their blood "

It seems that you think having the right to do _____ means that _____ is good or at least acceptable. When I say right to do _____ I mean that you cannot stop me from doing ______, even if you think it is wrong.

I have a God given right to reject God. If Genesis tells us anything it tells us this. That doesn’t make it a good thing. It doesn’t mean that exercising that right poorly isn’t sinful. I don’t understand the idea that the right to reject God somehow destroys the idea of sin. The right to choose poorly does not make all choices equal. You have the right to invest in bonds or lottery tickets. When those lottery tickets don’t work out you experience the results of exercising that right poorly. I have a right to be Catholic or something else. That doesn’t make being something else right.

If religious freedom is reduced to the freedom to agree with the Church, there is no such thing as religious freedom. And exactly how is the Church going to enforce that limited version of “freedom”?

 

[bear06]

I’m curious as to why stmaria chose to start using the “God-given” phrase in the first place? It’s not used in DH. This is some of what DH actually says:

1. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

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.(2) 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.

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, 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, provided that just public order be observed.