Can one be traditional and not support the SSPX?

[Meg]

I'd like to post part of a lecture that I've transcribed from a talk that Fr. Gregory Hesse gave about six years ago. Fr. Hesse was ordained in St. Peter's Basillica, in 1981, I believe. He has a doctorate in canon law, and Thomistic theology. this excerpt mostly addresses how the sensus fidelium of Catholics throughout history has helped them to reject heresies as promulgated by three popes. At the end Fr. Hesse talks about the obedience/schism issue regarding Archbishop Lefebvre, and how Pope John Paul ll gave a wrong definition of obedience. Some of his talks are available from CFN:

http://www.cfnews.org/FrHesse.htm

Lord Petrollton, with his cult-leader-wanna-be-like personality, won't understand any of it, so it's not for him, but for those who need a bit of ammo to use to defend orthodoxy.
--------------------
True Doctrine, by Fr. Gregory Hesse:

"Three times before in history there are magnificent examples on how the sensus fidelium - the real grasp of tradition - saved the Church. The first time was under the heretical pope, Pope Liberius

I have rejected Fr Hesse on the basis of this comment here and will read no further. We have already seen on this forum how people love to label the ones they are disobeying as being heretics. If someone is a heretic then you do not need to obey them. Therefore you decide for yourself that they are heretics so that you are justified in disobeying them.
Pope Liberius was not a heretic. He may have been weak in not supporting Athanasius. He may have been intimidated and weakened by his period in exile. He might have been a sinner in his personal life but he was NOT a heretic. He never sanctioned the Arian heresy even if he may have not withstood the teachers of Arianism staunchly enough. I am not going to judge a Pope, particularly not across the vast centuries.
However I will happily rely on St. Robert Bellarmine, doctor the church who stated.
"In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act [emphasis in original Latin], as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus."
What the saint is saying here is the Liberius defected for a period of time from his role as Pope but that this sin did not include the graver sin of heresy.
Who did you say Fr Hesse was again? I know who St. Robert Bellarmine is. I will side with him thanks very much. And if Fr Hesse is prepared to reject a Pope of the church simply in order to justify his own actions over 1500 years later then I will happily reject Fr. Hesse and urge all others to do likewise.
I know that Fr. Hesse was a canon lawyer and was a very intelligent and learned man so I have to wonder how he could possibly make such a flat our rejection and denial of Pope Liberius. He surely must have investigated the charges against Pope Liberius and found that it was not a simple cut and dry case of abject heresy. Yet despite this he has flat out stated that Pope Liberius was a heretic. Why would he do that?  It seems to me that the only reason he would do that is that he was a man of bad will and who was prepared to disparage a Pope in order to support his personal agenda whatever that was.

Therefore when we encounter an individual or his writings which are obviously the product of a bad will then we must reject it. I advise all readers of fisheaters to not read a single word past where he states that Pope Liberius was a heretic. Strike off from your reading list anything by Fr. Hesse and ignore his arguments as they are likely to contain poison against the church and the faith.

Yeah....right....whatever you say, Lord Petrollton. 

All Hail Lord Petrollton!!! God's personal emissary here on earth! (But don't tell the Pope) 
 

[petrelton]

I did provide evidence BECAUSE YOU PROVIDED IT...I even linked and quoted you....you are a pathetic heretic...who hates Catholic tradition..You are here to attempt to sow confusion..everyone knows it...so you will not be effective since everyone that comes here will see every post you make countered as has been the case...every time you post three of four people dismantle you (NO attendees and trads alike...that's choice)...and yet you persist...so I will persist and continue to let everyone know you are a heretic who worships the Pope and pretends to be Catholic and a trad...you are neither...you are a liar and calumniator   You wish above all else...as is apparent from your continued attacks on tradition...that you wish tradition had not survived.  But as pointed out on the new SSPX talks thread....you lost

You linked and quoted my words but offered no cogent explanation as to how they were heretical. In fact all you can do is blurt out insults like a gorilla with heartburn. In one paragraph you have called me pathetic, heretic, hater of catholic tradition, pope worshipper, pretender, non-catholic, non-traditional, liar, calumniator. How did you even manage that in one paragraph.
You call me all that but cannot back it up. You have not shown where I have spoken heresy. You have not, because you cannot. You lack the skill and wit to even express how you believe that I am a heretic. All you can do is grunt insults. You are an embarassment to the traditionalist cause. Fr. Cekada, you can have him. You are an example of what happens to a perfectly good forum when moderators do not do their job of moderation. The dross rises to the top and the moron rules.

We have seen your kind before and we have dealt with many more skillful that you.   If guys of the skill set had by Fr. R.J. Neuhaus got owned by trads   it should come as no surprise to you that you get owned on EVERY one of you posts...post which contain so much hate for a man who loved so much   Sad  but that's were you are....
All of your "arguments" have been answered here...and trashed multiple times....get used to it....'cause that's the way it's gonna stay.  

Yes your way of dealing with skillful individuals is to abuse them with moronic insults and hammer them with stinky fish so that they leave. You are nothing more than a thug. You rule your little corner of cyberspace with a cudgel and a nunchuka. You rely on brute force because you almost completely lack any kind of skill or ability.
This is how you deal with the skillful by laying into them with your cave-man club of insults and abuse. You are no different to a street thug protecting his patch from the encroaches of civilisation. You and your mates club together in your little gang "come-on guys, lets trash the modernist". Next week you'll trash my house and throw eggs and oil all over my furnishings.
Stop hunting me down. You are a disgrace and an embarassment. Clear off.

[Baskerville]

You are a disgrace and an embarassment. Clear off.

Pissinontrads you shouldnt be telling a long member to clear off. It is you with you modernist Vatican II Pope worship that needs to clear off.

[INPEFESS]

To this day nobody here has shown me what the heresy is that the Popes are supposed to have taught.

From Quanta Cura:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." 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,"2 viz., 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; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."4

From Dignitatis Humanae:

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.

Now what the council has stated (when curtailed by the limitations set forth in the bolded area) is common sense; it states that one may not hold a gun to someone's head and force them to accept Truth and Catholicism. This is most certain and should always be condemned. But the council takes this condemnation of coercion and force one step further:

On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.(3) The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed. 

Instead of guaranteeing man an immunity and exemption from coercion and force by civil authorities, it expands this limitation to include the legal and civil right (rather than moral right) to manifest one’s personal belief in the public expressions thereof – to teach, promote, and express religious error (such as lies, heresy, blasphemy, scandal, etc.)

The Holy Ghost would never inspire such a teaching, for the Holy Ghost has previously spoken through Pope Pius IX condemning such liberty:

Condemned:

"…liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way."

Again, to be clear, the issue rests in the fact that the Church may, has, and should condemn any forceful or coercive act which induces cooperation, acceptance, or confession of Truth. It CAN NOT, however, grant men the legal and civil right to publicly promote, teach, or exteriorly express religious error (heresy, sin, lies, etc.), for such an allowance would directly contribute to the loss of souls.

[Amusing_Myself_to_Death]

Perhaps I'm being overscrupulous (and conceited), but I believe that my comments on page 8 (remember back that far?) might have revived what might have been a dying thread.

Anyway, if I've been a source of contention to any degree, I apologize and ask for forgiveness--I did not mean to turn brother (or sister) against one another. Granted, some debates cannot be avoided...

I had a few questions regarding the SSPX, so I put them out in the Fisheasters' ether, hoping for discussion.

Being that I still have so many more questions about traditional Catholicism (let alone the SSPX), I will refrain from posting until I believe that I actually have something to contribute (not I posted that frequently anyway).

petrelton, even though we have been Fisheaters' "combatants," I wish you all grace and happiness. Here's to all of us coming to the truth and sharing a mint julep (I'm from Mississippi) together in glory.

[Scipio_a]

Next week you'll trash my house and throw eggs and oil all over my furnishings.
Stop hunting me down. You are a disgrace and an embarassment. Clear off.

Glad I could be disgraceful for you...never a dull moment...thanks for the ideas...I hope I wasn't too embarrasing however...I'd hate to think I ruined your chances to become prom King.

[nsper7]

Next week you'll trash my house and throw eggs and oil all over my furnishings.
Stop hunting me down. You are a disgrace and an embarassment. Clear off.

Glad I could be disgraceful for you...never a dull moment...thanks for the ideas...I hope I wasn't too embarrasing however...I'd hate to think I ruined your chances to become prom King.

Wow. Petrelton seems to have crossed a line. I can understand maybe getting that mad at DK, but Scipio_a (whom I have several theological disagreements with) has always been an honest and fair opponent on the theological discussion, although very to-the-point. Petrelton, you gain no allies by insulting Scipio....

[petrelton]

To this day nobody here has shown me what the heresy is that the Popes are supposed to have taught.

From Quanta Cura:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." 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,"2 viz., 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; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."4

From Dignitatis Humanae:

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.

Now what the council has stated (when curtailed by the limitations set forth in the bolded area) is common sense; it states that one may not hold a gun to someone's head and force them to accept Truth and Catholicism. This is most certain and should always be condemned. But the council takes this condemnation of coercion and force one step further:

On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.(3) The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.  

Instead of guaranteeing man an immunity and exemption from coercion and force by civil authorities, it expands this limitation to include the legal and civil right (rather than moral right) to manifest one’s personal belief in the public expressions thereof – to teach, promote, and express religious error (such as lies, heresy, blasphemy, scandal, etc.)

The Holy Ghost would never inspire such a teaching, for the Holy Ghost has previously spoken through Pope Pius IX condemning such liberty:

Condemned:

"…liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way."

Again, to be clear, the issue rests in the fact that the Church may, has, and should condemn any forceful or coercive act which induces cooperation, acceptance, or confession of Truth. It CAN NOT, however, grant men the legal and civil right to publicly promote, teach, or exteriorly express religious error (heresy, sin, lies, etc.), for such an allowance would directly contribute to the loss of souls.

Is that it? Is that all you've got? This is the great heresy that you have risen up in outrage against which excuses you in doubting the Pope and the church even to the point of seperating from the church idealogically, physically or both? You can't be serious.
Do you really think that the church was teaching Quanta Cura while it was being chased through the catacombs and fed to the lions? Therefore we can be certain that it is not de fide and a pivotal thought in the faith of the apostles. You know as well as I do that Quanta Cura defended the rights of papal states and countries which had catholicism as a state religion to defend their rights to exercise catholic values into all levels of society.
Common sense and blind freddy can tell you that in a world where there are Islamic states secular states and no Catholic states left in the world that Quant Cura is no longer relevant. On the day the Great Monarch comes is the day Quanta Cura can be dragged out again.
In fact there is absolutely no contradition between Quanta Cura and Vatican 2. They simply emphasise different aspects of the same thing. How can the state rule and govern its people and promote good without coercing people to follow the faith? If you think it is an easy matter to come up with a working model for the seperation or otherwise of church and state. Then go ahead. Better men than you and I have struggled to come upon the right and fair mix. But there is no easy answer because the world is fallen and the church although holy is also subject to failings as we saw at various times where the Inquisitions and crusades crossed certain boundaries which we would have preferred that they did not cross.
You have not pointed out how there is a contradiction between V2 and Quanta Cura. You have just provided two quotes and left it there as if it were self evident. In fact it is not. I can see no contradiction. Quanta Cura is denying the claim that the state "has no business in religion absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way"
Vatican 2 is not saying that. It is asking for liberty of religion but not absolute liberty. Not a completely unrestrained liberty where people can say and do whatever they like. Vatican 2 asks for liberty "within due limits" elsewhere it talks of the common good. So any kind of religious activity which impinges on the rights and freedoms of others and is injurious to society is in no way permitted in Vatican 2 and certainly exceeds the limits which it is asking for. Vatican 2 is talking about ensuring that there is sufficient liberty of religion that no individual is coerced into forming his religion.
As for freedom to express religious belief publicly. Vatican 2 considers this an aspect of religious freedom. How else can the church preach the gospel. However it is the way the gospel is preached which is at issue here. Proseletyzing, recruiting, ramming the gospel down people throats, doing the hard sell, using co-ercive and manipulative techniques or intimidation are not the expressions of free religious expression that V2 is talking about. V2 is saying that I should be able to freely converse with my muslim friends about my religion and about their religion in a mutual sharing way without having the thought police from the state or from the muslim or catholic authorities dragging me before the courts.
V2 is defending the rights of a free people. Now if you read Dimond brothers or wicked enemies of the church they will take ridiculous and hypothetical extremes that allow satanists to freely express their beliefs as if it is a religion, or that any wicked evildoer can call his beliefs a religion and then go forth preaching it. No V2 is not allowing that, that we be going beyond due limits. The V2 recognises that the good in all religions should be freely encouraged by the state and that those evil aspects of religions which manipulate, coerce and control citizens or cause them harm like you might expect from various cults, sects and some religions must be restrained.
Notice these V2 statements which entirely support Quanta Cura
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
 
Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.
These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary.

Now how true is this passage in V2 "
On the other hand, not a few can be found who seem inclined to use the name of freedom as the pretext for refusing to submit to authority and for making light of the duty of obedience."
We see that even in our very midst, in the core of our faith.
I really think there are wicked men of bad will out there. If you read through Dignitatis Humanae as a Christian and a man you would have no problem. But then when you read the poison of wicked men who highlight these apparent contradictions and then make statements like "They are corrupting the faith" suddenly everything seems horrible and wrong. You start to see all these things which start looking like errors. Before you know it you are going along looking for errors. Its a mindset. Let's take the example of cars. Now normally when you drive around a car is a car and you don't even really notice one from another. But then when you are shopping for a particular type of car, suddenly you see that type of car all over the place, you see it on the road, you see it in car yards, you see it on web sites. Everywhere you go you see that particular type of car because it is at the forefront of your mind. Then after you have bought your car your mind goes off the subject onto something else.
Well some of you guys are going out shopping for heresy. The difference between the heresy hunter and the car hunter is though that the heresy hunter finds heresies that aren't even there. He is chasing phantoms. Dreaming up heresies out of his navel.  
Truly its a joke. Even if we could say that there is a direct contradiction between Quanta Cura and Vatican 2, does it really amount to heresy or is it simply a changed administration from one period of history to another? That it is the latter should be as plain as the nose on your face. But men are wicked, their hearts are darkened and they choose to see heresy so that they can be excused to rebel and disobey, so that they can be justified to go off and do what they want and feel like special chosen called out ones.

[petrelton]

Next week you'll trash my house and throw eggs and oil all over my furnishings.
Stop hunting me down. You are a disgrace and an embarassment. Clear off.

Glad I could be disgraceful for you...never a dull moment...thanks for the ideas...I hope I wasn't too embarrasing however...I'd hate to think I ruined your chances to become prom King.

Wow. Petrelton seems to have crossed a line. I can understand maybe getting that mad at DK, but Scipio_a (whom I have several theological disagreements with) has always been an honest and fair opponent on the theological discussion, although very to-the-point. Petrelton, you gain no allies by insulting Scipio....

You need to take a good hard look at yourself nsper. Scipio called me  in one paragraph in one post pathetic, heretic, hater of catholic tradition, pope worshipper, pretender, non-catholic, non-traditional, liar, calumniator.
How is this being an honest and fair opponent to me? Are you saying that these accusations against me are honest and fair? Do you view me in the same way as scipio do you?
My retorts were mild in comparison, and yet you say nothing to scipio and instead rebuke me?

[nsper7]

Next week you'll trash my house and throw eggs and oil all over my furnishings.
Stop hunting me down. You are a disgrace and an embarassment. Clear off.

Glad I could be disgraceful for you...never a dull moment...thanks for the ideas...I hope I wasn't too embarrasing however...I'd hate to think I ruined your chances to become prom King.

Wow. Petrelton seems to have crossed a line. I can understand maybe getting that mad at DK, but Scipio_a (whom I have several theological disagreements with) has always been an honest and fair opponent on the theological discussion, although very to-the-point. Petrelton, you gain no allies by insulting Scipio....

You need to take a good hard look at yourself nsper. Scipio called me  in one paragraph in one post pathetic, heretic, hater of catholic tradition, pope worshipper, pretender, non-catholic, non-traditional, liar, calumniator.
How is this being an honest and fair opponent to me? Are you saying that these accusations against me are honest and fair? Do you view me in the same way as scipio do you?
My retorts were mild in comparison, and yet you say nothing to scipio and instead rebuke me?

I agree that some of his statements go too far, but you continue to try and make the SSPX issues into a black-and-white schism-or-no type of issue even though the Church has not done so.

[petrelton]

Next week you'll trash my house and throw eggs and oil all over my furnishings.
Stop hunting me down. You are a disgrace and an embarassment. Clear off.

Glad I could be disgraceful for you...never a dull moment...thanks for the ideas...I hope I wasn't too embarrasing however...I'd hate to think I ruined your chances to become prom King.

Wow. Petrelton seems to have crossed a line. I can understand maybe getting that mad at DK, but Scipio_a (whom I have several theological disagreements with) has always been an honest and fair opponent on the theological discussion, although very to-the-point. Petrelton, you gain no allies by insulting Scipio....

You need to take a good hard look at yourself nsper. Scipio called me  in one paragraph in one post pathetic, heretic, hater of catholic tradition, pope worshipper, pretender, non-catholic, non-traditional, liar, calumniator.
How is this being an honest and fair opponent to me? Are you saying that these accusations against me are honest and fair? Do you view me in the same way as scipio do you?
My retorts were mild in comparison, and yet you say nothing to scipio and instead rebuke me?

I agree that some of his statements go too far, but you continue to try and make the SSPX issues into a black-and-white schism-or-no type of issue even though the Church has not done so.

His statements go too far by your own admission and yet you correct me and not him. Why is that? You are not being honest and fair. One kind gentlemen defended me and pointed out that I had said nothing heretical even though I was being called a heretic, but as for you, you could not care less if I am accused unfairly of being a heretic. And then when I defend myself you lambast me? How is that honest and fair?
Clearly the message you are conveying here is that we should not defend ourselves but take every insult no matter how disparaging condemnatory and cruel on the chin.
We bandy about words like they are candy. nsper. He called me a heretic. Heretics go into the lake of fire on the last day. Don't you get it. I called him a gorilla. Is it a worse insult to call someone a gorilla than it is to call him a heretic.

[Benno]

Peteltron, you missed my point. Any way, continue fighting them windmills...

[INPEFESS]

To this day nobody here has shown me what the heresy is that the Popes are supposed to have taught.

From Quanta Cura:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." 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,"2 viz., 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; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."4

From Dignitatis Humanae:

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.

Now what the council has stated (when curtailed by the limitations set forth in the bolded area) is common sense; it states that one may not hold a gun to someone's head and force them to accept Truth and Catholicism. This is most certain and should always be condemned. But the council takes this condemnation of coercion and force one step further:

On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.(3) The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.  

Instead of guaranteeing man an immunity and exemption from coercion and force by civil authorities, it expands this limitation to include the legal and civil right (rather than moral right) to manifest one’s personal belief in the public expressions thereof – to teach, promote, and express religious error (such as lies, heresy, blasphemy, scandal, etc.)

The Holy Ghost would never inspire such a teaching, for the Holy Ghost has previously spoken through Pope Pius IX condemning such liberty:

Condemned:

"…liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way."

Again, to be clear, the issue rests in the fact that the Church may, has, and should condemn any forceful or coercive act which induces cooperation, acceptance, or confession of Truth. It CAN NOT, however, grant men the legal and civil right to publicly promote, teach, or exteriorly express religious error (heresy, sin, lies, etc.), for such an allowance would directly contribute to the loss of souls.

Is that it? Is that all you've got? This is the great heresy that you have risen up in outrage against which excuses you in doubting the Pope and the church even to the point of seperating from the church idealogically, physically or both? You can't be serious.
Do you really think that the church was teaching Quanta Cura while it was being chased through the catacombs and fed to the lions? Therefore we can be certain that it is not de fide and a pivotal thought in the faith of the apostles. You know as well as I do that Quanta Cura defended the rights of papal states and countries which had catholicism as a state religion to defend their rights to exercise catholic values into all levels of society.
Common sense and blind freddy can tell you that in a world where there are Islamic states secular states and no Catholic states left in the world that Quant Cura is no longer relevant. On the day the Great Monarch comes is the day Quanta Cura can be dragged out again.
In fact there is absolutely no contradition between Quanta Cura and Vatican 2. They simply emphasise different aspects of the same thing. How can the state rule and govern its people and promote good without coercing people to follow the faith? If you think it is an easy matter to come up with a working model for the seperation or otherwise of church and state. Then go ahead. Better men than you and I have struggled to come upon the right and fair mix. But there is no easy answer because the world is fallen and the church although holy is also subject to failings as we saw at various times where the Inquisitions and crusades crossed certain boundaries which we would have preferred that they did not cross.
You have not pointed out how there is a contradiction between V2 and Quanta Cura. You have just provided two quotes and left it there as if it were self evident. In fact it is not. I can see no contradiction. Quanta Cura is denying the claim that the state "has no business in religion absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way"
Vatican 2 is not saying that. It is asking for liberty of religion but not absolute liberty. Not a completely unrestrained liberty where people can say and do whatever they like. Vatican 2 asks for liberty "within due limits" elsewhere it talks of the common good. So any kind of religious activity which impinges on the rights and freedoms of others and is injurious to society is in no way permitted in Vatican 2 and certainly exceeds the limits which it is asking for. Vatican 2 is talking about ensuring that there is sufficient liberty of religion that no individual is coerced into forming his religion.
As for freedom to express religious belief publicly. Vatican 2 considers this an aspect of religious freedom. How else can the church preach the gospel. However it is the way the gospel is preached which is at issue here. Proseletyzing, recruiting, ramming the gospel down people throats, doing the hard sell, using co-ercive and manipulative techniques or intimidation are not the expressions of free religious expression that V2 is talking about. V2 is saying that I should be able to freely converse with my muslim friends about my religion and about their religion in a mutual sharing way without having the thought police from the state or from the muslim or catholic authorities dragging me before the courts.
V2 is defending the rights of a free people. Now if you read Dimond brothers or wicked enemies of the church they will take ridiculous and hypothetical extremes that allow satanists to freely express their beliefs as if it is a religion, or that any wicked evildoer can call his beliefs a religion and then go forth preaching it. No V2 is not allowing that, that we be going beyond due limits. The V2 recognises that the good in all religions should be freely encouraged by the state and that those evil aspects of religions which manipulate, coerce and control citizens or cause them harm like you might expect from various cults, sects and some religions must be restrained.
Notice these V2 statements which entirely support Quanta Cura
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
 
Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.
These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary.

Now how true is this passage in V2 "
On the other hand, not a few can be found who seem inclined to use the name of freedom as the pretext for refusing to submit to authority and for making light of the duty of obedience."
We see that even in our very midst, in the core of our faith.
I really think there are wicked men of bad will out there. If you read through Dignitatis Humanae as a Christian and a man you would have no problem. But then when you read the poison of wicked men who highlight these apparent contradictions and then make statements like "They are corrupting the faith" suddenly everything seems horrible and wrong. You start to see all these things which start looking like errors. Before you know it you are going along looking for errors. Its a mindset. Let's take the example of cars. Now normally when you drive around a car is a car and you don't even really notice one from another. But then when you are shopping for a particular type of car, suddenly you see that type of car all over the place, you see it on the road, you see it in car yards, you see it on web sites. Everywhere you go you see that particular type of car because it is at the forefront of your mind. Then after you have bought your car your mind goes off the subject onto something else.
Well some of you guys are going out shopping for heresy. The difference between the heresy hunter and the car hunter is though that the heresy hunter finds heresies that aren't even there. He is chasing phantoms. Dreaming up heresies out of his navel.  
Truly its a joke. Even if we could say that there is a direct contradiction between Quanta Cura and Vatican 2, does it really amount to heresy or is it simply a changed administration from one period of history to another? That it is the latter should be as plain as the nose on your face. But men are wicked, their hearts are darkened and they choose to see heresy so that they can be excused to rebel and disobey, so that they can be justified to go off and do what they want and feel like special chosen called out ones.

It is but the tip of the iceburg.

[petrelton]

It is but the tip of the iceburg.

Your iceberg tip does not look at all like heresy to me. Why should I think your iceberg is any different. What you gave me is not heresy. Please produce the incredible Arian crisis style heresy that you reckon is there which justifies you in your position.

[INPEFESS]

Is that it? Is that all you've got? This is the great heresy that you have risen up in outrage against which excuses you in doubting the Pope and the church even to the point of seperating from the church idealogically, physically or both? You can't be serious.
Do you really think that the church was teaching Quanta Cura while it was being chased through the catacombs and fed to the lions? Therefore we can be certain that it is not de fide and a pivotal thought in the faith of the apostles. You know as well as I do that Quanta Cura defended the rights of papal states and countries which had catholicism as a state religion to defend their rights to exercise catholic values into all levels of society.
Common sense and blind freddy can tell you that in a world where there are Islamic states secular states and no Catholic states left in the world that Quant Cura is no longer relevant. On the day the Great Monarch comes is the day Quanta Cura can be dragged out again.
In fact there is absolutely no contradition between Quanta Cura and Vatican 2. They simply emphasise different aspects of the same thing. How can the state rule and govern its people and promote good without coercing people to follow the faith? If you think it is an easy matter to come up with a working model for the seperation or otherwise of church and state. Then go ahead. Better men than you and I have struggled to come upon the right and fair mix. But there is no easy answer because the world is fallen and the church although holy is also subject to failings as we saw at various times where the Inquisitions and crusades crossed certain boundaries which we would have preferred that they did not cross.
You have not pointed out how there is a contradiction between V2 and Quanta Cura. You have just provided two quotes and left it there as if it were self evident. In fact it is not. I can see no contradiction. Quanta Cura is denying the claim that the state "has no business in religion absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way"
Vatican 2 is not saying that. It is asking for liberty of religion but not absolute liberty. Not a completely unrestrained liberty where people can say and do whatever they like. Vatican 2 asks for liberty "within due limits" elsewhere it talks of the common good. So any kind of religious activity which impinges on the rights and freedoms of others and is injurious to society is in no way permitted in Vatican 2 and certainly exceeds the limits which it is asking for. Vatican 2 is talking about ensuring that there is sufficient liberty of religion that no individual is coerced into forming his religion.
As for freedom to express religious belief publicly. Vatican 2 considers this an aspect of religious freedom. How else can the church preach the gospel. However it is the way the gospel is preached which is at issue here. Proseletyzing, recruiting, ramming the gospel down people throats, doing the hard sell, using co-ercive and manipulative techniques or intimidation are not the expressions of free religious expression that V2 is talking about. V2 is saying that I should be able to freely converse with my muslim friends about my religion and about their religion in a mutual sharing way without having the thought police from the state or from the muslim or catholic authorities dragging me before the courts.
V2 is defending the rights of a free people. Now if you read Dimond brothers or wicked enemies of the church they will take ridiculous and hypothetical extremes that allow satanists to freely express their beliefs as if it is a religion, or that any wicked evildoer can call his beliefs a religion and then go forth preaching it. No V2 is not allowing that, that we be going beyond due limits. The V2 recognises that the good in all religions should be freely encouraged by the state and that those evil aspects of religions which manipulate, coerce and control citizens or cause them harm like you might expect from various cults, sects and some religions must be restrained.
Notice these V2 statements which entirely support Quanta Cura
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
 
Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.
These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary.

Now how true is this passage in V2 "
On the other hand, not a few can be found who seem inclined to use the name of freedom as the pretext for refusing to submit to authority and for making light of the duty of obedience."
We see that even in our very midst, in the core of our faith.
I really think there are wicked men of bad will out there. If you read through Dignitatis Humanae as a Christian and a man you would have no problem. But then when you read the poison of wicked men who highlight these apparent contradictions and then make statements like "They are corrupting the faith" suddenly everything seems horrible and wrong. You start to see all these things which start looking like errors. Before you know it you are going along looking for errors. Its a mindset. Let's take the example of cars. Now normally when you drive around a car is a car and you don't even really notice one from another. But then when you are shopping for a particular type of car, suddenly you see that type of car all over the place, you see it on the road, you see it in car yards, you see it on web sites. Everywhere you go you see that particular type of car because it is at the forefront of your mind. Then after you have bought your car your mind goes off the subject onto something else.
Well some of you guys are going out shopping for heresy. The difference between the heresy hunter and the car hunter is though that the heresy hunter finds heresies that aren't even there. He is chasing phantoms. Dreaming up heresies out of his navel. 
Truly its a joke. Even if we could say that there is a direct contradiction between Quanta Cura and Vatican 2, does it really amount to heresy or is it simply a changed administration from one period of history to another? That it is the latter should be as plain as the nose on your face. But men are wicked, their hearts are darkened and they choose to see heresy so that they can be excused to rebel and disobey, so that they can be justified to go off and do what they want and feel like special chosen called out ones.

You are completely missing the point. The Church has declared something. What it has declared is as relevant a pronouncement of the Magisterium as any – now and forever. You reduce the Magisterium to a mere material ruling authority which can change objective truth and its applicability whenever the world changes. These are declarations of objective Truth. A thing can’t be objectively evil, and then made objectively good by VII. This proposition of VII was condemned. You have reconciled nothing. No amount of mental gymnastics and writing countless paragraphs trying to explain the inapplicability of the Truth (concerning what is evil) revealed by God is going to get you to override what the Church has already declared as evil and condemned. Moreover, you cannot subjectively interpret what the Apostles were thinking. Also, the evils detailed in Quanta Cura don’t only apply when it (QC) is “dragged out” as you say. Bear in mind that we are talking about a Divine authority here. You don’t “drag out” God’s word and then put it away when it no longer seems to work. As I told you in my original PM, Truth is Truth even before it was defined as such. Once it has been pronounced, there is no reversal of what was once true.

You have not pointed out how there is a contradiction between V2 and Quanta Cura. You have just provided two quotes and left it there as if it were self evident. In fact it is not. I can see no contradiction. Quanta Cura is denying the claim that the state "has no business in religion absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way"
Vatican 2 is not saying that. It is asking for liberty of religion but not absolute liberty. Not a completely unrestrained liberty where people can say and do whatever they like. Vatican 2 asks for liberty "within due limits" elsewhere it talks of the common good. So any kind of religious activity which impinges on the rights and freedoms of others and is injurious to society is in no way permitted in Vatican 2 and certainly exceeds the limits which it is asking for. Vatican 2 is talking about ensuring that there is sufficient liberty of religion that no individual is coerced into forming his religion.

You speak folly. You invented your own distinction that not even the Church has made. There is no distinction here between “religious liberty” and “absolute religious liberty.” You make a false claim here. When defining the extent of religious freedom, the Church said:

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 “within due limits” clause does not attach to the “The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.(3) The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed” clause. Rather, in the expression of belief, the council makes it very clear that the only restriction here is that just public order is observed. Obviously, Satanists can’t go around killing everyone if that be their belief. But when the council treats of the manifest expression of beliefs, it does not say what you have made it say – that this is only allowed “within due limits.” This diversion from the the catalyst of this debate is a straw man.

Furthermore, the first part of the condemned proposition in Quanta Cura says, “liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society…” VII says: “The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.”
VII treats of “injury to the person” while Quanta Cura treats of injury to God. What is more important? The latter, of course. God would never explicitly, through the mouth of His own Spouse, declare that everyone ‘ought to express his own liberty of conscience and worship (to publically teach heresy and promulgate teachings against His own) in every rightly constituted society.’ Because no one has any moral right to error (because God has promised punishment to anyone who does not confess Truth), no one has any “right” to teach it, neither legal nor moral. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, a law only binds on the conscience if it is good and righteous. A legal law which gives one liberty (restricted only by public order) to teach sin, error, blasphemy, scandal, and heresy (all may be practiced and taught without breaching public order) cannot bind because it is against God’s law. And no Catholic is allowed to obey a law which is against God’s law.
Lex dubia non obligat.