Vatican I disproves sspx

[PopePiusXIISupp]

Sedevacantism says that there is no pope after Pope Pius XII (what is generally assumed as some go back farther). The SSPX accept the pope and pope and say masses una cum papa (in union with the pope). So by that they do accept the pope. They are disobedient, but that does not mean schism as that means rejecting the pope and those in union with him, but that is a thread for itself.

(I do not sympathize with the SSPX as they have faulty logic)

 

[Expatreprocedit]

according to the council honorius was a private heretic

I don’t see the word “private” or any equivalent in the extract. I see the word “heretic”, simpliciter, and I see Honorius named with other public heretics.

 

[commenter]

That’s a much more reasonable assertion.

It’s certainly true that the existence of limitations on authority can be abused to wiggle out of obedience. The error is in the wiggling, however, not in the assertion that there are limitations.

I’m afraid many of us fall into the opposite error of equating the Magisterium with the person of the holy father, rather than see the Magisterium as something belonging to the Church in all ages, in which the current holy father participates.

A solemn definition in a papal bull from 500 years ago does not become less infallible over time. Nor can it be overturned by, say, a private letter the living pope (whomever he happens to be) writes to a prelate on the same subject, let alone an attempted solemn definition to the contrary (which would be impossible). Granted, the living successor of Peter has peculiar authority to synthesize and interpret past magisterial statements (as do the bishops in communion with him); but if he does so as a private theologian, it is not the same as if he does so as supreme pontiff.

You are correct in that there are 2 opposite errors to avoid. At various times more people are likely to fall into one error, at other times more are likely to fall into the opposite error.
Catholics are influenced by the secular climate of the moment. In 2017, are Catholics in the West more prone towards excessive obedience to current religious authority? Or are they more tempted towards disobedience, I will do my own thing, I will myself evaluate the current pope (or bishop, or pastor, or parent, etc). Popes have limitations, but I sure don’t.

Is this the Age of Eisenhower and Churchill, in terms of respect for current leadership? Or are we more likely to be biased from a different direction?

 

[twf]

I don’t see the word “private” or any equivalent in the extract. I see the word “heretic”, simpliciter, and I see Honorius named with other public heretics.

Its immaterial. I think the poster simply meant that he didn’t explicitly teach heresy, but he was condemned by the council regardless with other heretics as you say. Much later in our history, Pope John XII was a heretic as well, but he was corrected and recanted. This isn’t an issue for Catholics. This pious sentiment that the Pope can’t even err in his personal beliefs is rubbish and not Catholic teaching.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

. . . In 2017, are Catholics in the West more prone towards excessive obedience to current religious authority? Or are they more tempted towards disobedience . . . ?

While it’s true that we live in a predominantly anti-authoritarian age, opposite extremes can and do co-exist. As a matter of fact, they co-exist precisely because of each other, in reaction to one another. Thus the Church today is polarized between those whose forbears over-corrected strictness with misguided liberality, and those who have over-corrected that liberality with excessive strictness. Similarly, those who exaggerate the powers of the Roman Pontiff are reacting to those who deny them. It may be that the one camp vastly outnumbers the other, but both dangers are equally real.

 

[giuseppeTO]

…no pope can teach heresy in a matter binding on the church.

As an SSPX’er, I am a bit confused about the title of this thread. The Society of St. Pius X is union of priests without vows. I’m not sure how the First Vatican Council disproves that.

I do agree with your quote above and I do not believe that any post-conciliar Pope has attempted to do that. There have been Popes who have taught error (Pope John XX), were challenged by the only rightful authority (Cardinals and Bishops), and recanted their erroneous positions.

Even in the case of John XX, he did not seek to bind his error on the church.

 

[willymonfrete]

As an SSPX’er, I am a bit confused about the title of this thread. The Society of St. Pius X is union of priests without vows. I’m not sure how the First Vatican Council disproves that.

I do agree with your quote above and I do not believe that any post-conciliar Pope has attempted to do that. There have been Popes who have taught error (Pope John XX), were challenged by the only rightful authority (Cardinals and Bishops), and recanted their erroneous positions.

Even in the case of John XX, he did not seek to bind his error on the church.

there is a difference between error and heresy.a pope can fall into error but not heresy,wich means go oppositte to a doctrine formed by the magisterium.

 

[giuseppeTO]

there is a difference between error and heresy.a pope can fall into error but not heresy,wich means go oppositte to a doctrine formed by the magisterium.

Well, all heresy is error. Heresy is adherence to a belief contrary to the dogmatic teachings of the church. Pope John did that but evetually recanted once corrected. V1 protects the Pope against binding the church in that error, or heresy, in that case.

 

[commenter]

As an SSPX’er, I am a bit confused about the title of this thread. The Society of St. Pius X is union of priests without vows. I’m not sure how the First Vatican Council disproves that.

I do agree with your quote above and I do not believe that any post-conciliar Pope has attempted to do that. There have been Popes who have taught error (Pope John XX), were challenged by the only rightful authority (Cardinals and Bishops), and recanted their erroneous positions.

Even in the case of John XX, he did not seek to bind his error on the church.

Welcome, g. I have not run into your posts for some time. They are always accurate and charitable.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Welcome, g. I have not run into your posts for some time. They are always accurate and charitable.

Thanks C-. It is much eadier to be accurate than charitable and I frequently fall short with the former and struggle with the latter.

I have enough warnings over the past 11 years on CA to pave a parking lot. But I think I’m mellowing in old age.

 

[PluniaZ]

Idk if this holds up, especially if you read up about Pope Honorius 1 :

More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”.

"Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, “And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” The Sixteenth Session adds: “To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!”

If one Pope could have been wrong in matters of faith, than perhaps another could.
It scares me to think about this.

A church council does not have the authority to judge the Pope.

“And who would you be, man, who did this? Where is your authority to do it? Offer testimony from the Holy Book, if you can. Is that a way to live according to the Gospel? Absolutely not. For in the Gospel Christ says to Peter: And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven. And you would say to the pope, the successor of Peter: ”Do not bind this, do not loose that!”! Do you not know, you miserable man, that only divine authority binds the Roman Bishop? The pope is only subject to Holy Scripture, revealed by the hand of God, and he is not bound by decrees of men. ”But we say that the pope is subject to reason, and the power of the Church is given for edification and not for destruction.” But even if you believe the Bishop of Rome to be in error, that does not give you the right to judge him, for only God can judge the Pope. No mortal man may accuse him of faults. Oh, how wrong is the opinion of many men: though they do not allow a king’s subjects to have any say against the king, they would allow it in the case of the Pope even if God has given him power over all mortal men. Those stupid men are unconcerned that the Holy Apostolic Church has, from Saint Peter to this day, never been heard to teach anything that is contrary to orthodox faith. This privilege it has received from the Lord that it shall never succumb to wrong teachings for the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Let this suffice concerning your praise of the Apostolic See.”

-Pope Pius II, Multa hic hodie

halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01184531/document

 

[commenter]

Sedevacantism says that there is no pope after Pope Pius XII (what is generally assumed as some go back farther). The SSPX **accept **the pope and pope and say masses una cum papa (in union with the pope). So by that they do accept the pope. They are disobedient, but that does not mean schism as that means rejecting the pope and those in union with him, but that is a thread for itself.

(I do not sympathize with the SSPX as they have faulty logic)

There are degrees of sedevantism. Someone might assert, or affirm, Pope Pius XII as Pope, but only “accept”, to use your word, Paul VI as pope. Thus, a document from Pope Pius XI might be quoted as ****part ****of the core of Catholic Tradition that post Vatican II popes are evaluated against. The implication is that post Vatican II popes, though validly elected, don’t have the same authority as pre Vatican II Popes.

The implication is that Pius X’s statements are authoritative as soon as he wrote them, and we can’t selectively reject anything; not could the people during his own papacy. But with recent papal statements, we can reject anything as long we can find a Papal statement, anything, as long as it is earlier than 1958 - even if the earlier papal statement was in a different context, in response to a situation not present today.

I am not saying this is the official position of SSPX, but I think it is, for some of their defenders. It is not exactly sedevacantism which claims no valid pope since X year.
It considers recent popes as placeholders, something like acting popes with ceremonial authority, with the possibility of a fully authoritative pope coming in the future. If you find people describing the “Bergoglio papacy”, or referring back to the Montini papacy, that is kind of a hint. Semi-sede?

 

[commenter]

Similar. This philosophy sedeprivationism might fit the position of groups such as SSPV and the SSPX Resistance, which seem to identify no doctrinal authority to recent popes. But I am hypothesizing a middle position between this, and, for instance, Vatican I’s description, which is what I was taught.

Some groups, or websites, seem to regard recent popes as somewhat papal, though less papal than pre-1958 popes. Thus, they say a recent pope was authoritative, or fairly “papal” on this document but not that. Or they say hold off on implementing these other recent pope teachings, until they are fully discerned, as to their accuracy. How do they discern? They compare to the template of Tradition, part of which is made up of papal statements that were authoritative on the day they were written, by Pope Pius XII, Pope Leo XIII, etc. If you read pro-SSPX websites, they may cite something by Pope Pius XI, without feeling the need to add, “Hey, this is authoritative”. It is a given. No need to discern here, or to wait for our research department to fully assess.

The websites disagree among themselves as to the authority of given recent papal teachings; maybe this recent pope less unreliable than that one, even though we honor and respect both - and they are sometimes ok on doctrine. That is why I hypothesize a position with a gradation, a dimmer switch, rather than “on/off” which semprivationism is.

Liberal groups might say Pope Francis was quite papal when he taught about marriage, but mostly just his private opinion when he talked about resisting the Devil. Other groups might argue the reverse.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

A church council does not have the authority to judge the Pope.

Well, apparently the delegates to the Third Council of Constantinople, which included representations of the reigning Pope, never heard of this principle.

 

[twf]

Well, apparently the delegates to the Third Council of Constantinople, which included representations of the reigning Pope, never heard of this principle.

They were judging a deceased pope, not the reigning pope, no? Hypothetically Pope Emeritus Benedict could now be judged. Pope Francis, on the other hand, could only be advised, not judged.

 

[PluniaZ]

Well, apparently the delegates to the Third Council of Constantinople, which included representations of the reigning Pope, never heard of this principle.

The council contradicted themselves on this point, since they also approved the letter of Pope Agatho to the council, which read:

For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren. Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all. Wherefore the predecessors of Apostolic memory of my littleness, learned in the doctrine of the Lord, ever since the prelates of the Church of Constantinople have been trying to introduce into the immaculate Church of Christ an heretical innovation, have never ceased to exhort and warn them with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma, lest from this they make the beginning of a split in the unity of the Church, by asserting one will, and one operation of the two natures in the one Jesus Christ our Lord: a thing which the Arians and the Apollinarists, the Eutychians, the Timotheans, the Acephali, the Theodosians and the Gaianitæ taught, and every heretical madness, whether of those who confound, or of those who divide the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ.

newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

Of course the hostility and rebellion of Constantinople against the successors of Saint Peter had already been made manifest in the controversy that gave rise to the council when they murdered Pope Martin I.

 

[commenter]

The council contradicted themselves on this point, since they also approved the letter of Pope Agatho to the council, which read:

newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

Of course the hostility and rebellion of Constantinople against the successors of Saint Peter had already been made manifest in the controversy that gave rise to the council when they murdered Pope Martin I.

There are some interesting opinions and info added in this thread, that might better be addressed in a thread of their own.

For ****this ****thread, let’s try to focus on how Vatican I and its ongoing interpretation may, or may not, affect the current status and future of the FSSPX or SSPX, a “Western” organization that has existed since the early 1970s. Or you could post on how the SSPX affects future interpretation of Vatican I.

Relations between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and historic controversy from that era, is still important - but consider posting on another thread.