Can one be traditional and not support the SSPX?

[petrelton]

. I think you need to read Dignitatis Humanae.

 

Did you just suggest I read Dignitatis Humanea?  A Vatican II document no thanks. If you can find a quote about the dignity of man from Vatican I or Trent I may oblige you I have no use for reading documents from a heretical freemasonic inspired council. I had to read them as part of a Church class and nearly lost it at their ambiguity and total disregard for everything the church has taught for two thousand years.

How can you speak on a Council which you refuse to even read?

If you read the post, you will see that he has read them!

Touche, though I'd still be interested to see what people find heretical in them.  I hear that charged laid a lot, but I've never really seen any particular parts pulled out and labeled as such.

Agreed. Its true they are ambiguous at times. But even dogmatic unambiguous language can be twisted into new meanings if the gainsayer is of a mind to do so. I have read the document and find no problem with it. The critic commonly takes V1 and Trent statements and puts V2 statements next to it and says "Look at the difference" however the difference is not a change to truth but rather a different stressing on certain aspects of the truth as required by the changing world. The V1 documents were protecting the sovereign rights of papal states. But since then there are no papal states left. The issues are different. Today we are protecting basic human rights, freedom from co-ercion in religion. Even in the old days of the church with its papal states,  pagans and infidels were never coerced into being Catholic. This freedom from coercion would have been defended in the old days just as readily as it is defended today with V2 (even though there may have been unhappy examples of breaches of this basic human right in the past). I am happy to receive accusations of where DH conflicts with tradition. I will happily explain how DH should be understood in the light of tradition.

But this kind of analysis needs to be done with an attitude of generosity and kindness toward the church and the council. With teachability comes understanding. But when this analysis is done with a hardened heart of criticism and animosity it will come as no suprise that contention and division is all that will be achieved. This analysis probably does not belong in this thread so maybe I or someone else can start a new thread on DH.

[Baskerville]

. I think you need to read Dignitatis Humanae.

 

Did you just suggest I read Dignitatis Humanea?  A Vatican II document no thanks. If you can find a quote about the dignity of man from Vatican I or Trent I may oblige you I have no use for reading documents from a heretical freemasonic inspired council. I had to read them as part of a Church class and nearly lost it at their ambiguity and total disregard for everything the church has taught for two thousand years.

How can you speak on a Council which you refuse to even read?

If you read the post, you will see that he has read them!

Touche, though I'd still be interested to see what people find heretical in them.  I hear that charged laid a lot, but I've never really seen any particular parts pulled out and labeled as such.

Its the complete 180 the Church took at Vatican II as opposed to all the other councils. If something was true one day it cant be wrong the next. Like in Dignitatis Humanae saying that everyone has a right to religious freedom when just 100 years before that postition was labeled a modernist heresy. I just dont get how it can be wrong for 1900 years then "oh oops our bad we dont need to convert anyone anymore  and church and state should actualy be seperate we have been wrong all along". In my mind its all a joke either Vatican II was wrong or the previous 1900 years were wrong and if thats the case the Catholic Church is not the true Church and I need to convert back to Russian Orthodox. See what I am saying.

[Baskerville]

I am happy to receive accusations of where DH conflicts with tradition. I will happily explain how DH should be understood in the light of tradition.

Syllabus of errors # 15: Everyman is free to embrace that religion which guided by the light of reason he concedes to be true and that it has been widely decided in some Catholic countries that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the excersize of their own particular worship.

Dignitatis Humanae: All persons have a right to religious liberty a right with its foundation in the dignity of every human being. All persons must be free to seek the truth without coercion.

All this is condemned in the Syllabus of errors.

[CanadianCatholic]

. I think you need to read Dignitatis Humanae.

 

Did you just suggest I read Dignitatis Humanea?  A Vatican II document no thanks. If you can find a quote about the dignity of man from Vatican I or Trent I may oblige you I have no use for reading documents from a heretical freemasonic inspired council. I had to read them as part of a Church class and nearly lost it at their ambiguity and total disregard for everything the church has taught for two thousand years.

How can you speak on a Council which you refuse to even read?

If you read the post, you will see that he has read them!

Touche, though I'd still be interested to see what people find heretical in them.  I hear that charged laid a lot, but I've never really seen any particular parts pulled out and labeled as such.

Its the complete 180 the Church took at Vatican II as opposed to all the other councils. If something was true one day it cant be wrong the next. Like in Dignitatis Humanae saying that everyone has a right to religious freedom when just 100 years before that postition was labeled a modernist heresy. I just dont get how it can be wrong for 1900 years then "oh oops our bad we dont need to convert anyone anymore  and church and state should actualy be seperate we have been wrong all along". In my mind its all a joke either Vatican II was wrong or the previous 1900 years were wrong and if thats the case the Catholic Church is not the true Church and I need to convert back to Russian Orthodox. See what I am saying.

+1 well said

[jovan66102]

I am happy to receive accusations of where DH conflicts with tradition. I will happily explain how DH should be understood in the light of tradition.

Syllabus of errors # 15: Everyman is free to embrace that religion which guided by the light of reason he concedes to be true and that it has been widely decided in some Catholic countries that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the excersize of their own particular worship.

Dignitatis Humanae: All persons have a right to religious liberty a right with its foundation in the dignity of every human being. All persons must be free to seek the truth without coercion.

All this is condemned in the Syllabus of errors.

Bask, it's a dead horse that I'm tired of beating. 'There are none so blind as those who will not see'. Pope Benedict, while still a Cardinal, called DH a 'counter Syllabus'. It is as plain as plain can be that DH is heretical and cannot possibly be reconciled with the Magisterium, But, even given that, the V II worshippers refuse to see the plain contradictions!

[Baskerville]

I am happy to receive accusations of where DH conflicts with tradition. I will happily explain how DH should be understood in the light of tradition.

Syllabus of errors # 15: Everyman is free to embrace that religion which guided by the light of reason he concedes to be true and that it has been widely decided in some Catholic countries that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the excersize of their own particular worship.

Dignitatis Humanae: All persons have a right to religious liberty a right with its foundation in the dignity of every human being. All persons must be free to seek the truth without coercion.

All this is condemned in the Syllabus of errors.

Bask, it's a dead horse that I'm tired of beating. 'There are none so blind as those who will not see'. Pope Benedict, while still a Cardinal, called DH a 'counter Syllabus'. It is as plain as plain can be that DH is heretical and cannot possibly be reconciled with the Magisterium, But, even given that, the V II worshippers refuse to see the plain contradictions!

Alas your right. I was going to point out that Pope Benedict as a Cardinal even called it a counter syllabus after the inevitable attempt at trying to reconcile the two. I think I'll just have a drink.

[jovan66102]

I think I'll just have a drink.

That's what I'm going to do shortly! Out to my local for a couple of pints.

[Walty]

Does anyone have the quote where he says this?  I'd be interested to read it. 

[Baskerville]

Does anyone have the quote where he says this?  I'd be interested to read it. 

This is the only one I have saved but I have read it before. I have no clue why they cited the French version of the book I have the English one(I have most of Pope Benedicts/Ratzingers books) and I read this back when I was a neo con NO reform of reform Catholic and this gave me pause even back then.

http://traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_031_RatzingerCouterSyllabus.htm

The book is called The Principles of Catholic Theology:Building stones for a Fundamental theology something like that.

[Baskerville]

I am happy to receive accusations of where DH conflicts with tradition. I will happily explain how DH should be understood in the light of tradition.

Syllabus of errors # 15: Everyman is free to embrace that religion which guided by the light of reason he concedes to be true and that it has been widely decided in some Catholic countries that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the excersize of their own particular worship.

Dignitatis Humanae: All persons have a right to religious liberty a right with its foundation in the dignity of every human being. All persons must be free to seek the truth without coercion.

All this is condemned in the Syllabus of errors.

Still waiting....

[jovan66102]

Still waiting....

You'll probably wait awhile since trolls like him are not long on logic or imtelligence!

[nsper7]

I am happy to receive accusations of where DH conflicts with tradition. I will happily explain how DH should be understood in the light of tradition.

Syllabus of errors # 15: Everyman is free to embrace that religion which guided by the light of reason he concedes to be true and that it has been widely decided in some Catholic countries that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the excersize of their own particular worship.

Dignitatis Humanae: All persons have a right to religious liberty a right with its foundation in the dignity of every human being. All persons must be free to seek the truth without coercion.

All this is condemned in the Syllabus of errors.

Still waiting....

Does the Syllabus of Errors fall under Papal Infallibility? If not, then couldn't a future Pope/Ecumenical Council rephrase the non-infallible parts? Obviously, certain proclamations of the Syllabus would fall under infallibility due to reflecting previous infallible declarations of either Ecumenical Councils, prior Popes or the ordinary and universal Magesterium.

[jovan66102]

Does the Syllabus of Errors fall under Papal Infallibility? If not, then couldn't a future Pope/Ecumenical Council rephrase the non-infallible parts? Obviously, certain proclamations of the Syllabus would fall under infallibility due to reflecting previous infallible declarations of either Ecumenical Councils, prior Popes or the ordinary and universal Magesterium.

The Syllabus was attahed to the Encyckical Quanta Cura which was addressed

To Our Venerable Brethren, all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops having favor and Communion of the Holy See.

Thus to the entire Church and definitely dealing with Faith and Morals, thus being an exercise of Papal Infallibility (not yet dogmatically defined).

From Father John Hardon, SJ, 'Modern Catholic Dictionary, published, with a post-Conciliar imprimatur, in 1980:
 

SYLLABUS OF PIUS IX. A series of eighty condemned propositions listing the prevalent errors that aimed at the undermining of society, morality, and religion. Every Catholic is expected to give exterior and interior assent to the condemnation of errors expressed in this syllabus.

Little hard to accept DH and 'give exterior and interior assent to the condemnation of errors expressed in this syllabus'!

[nsper7]

Does the Syllabus of Errors fall under Papal Infallibility? If not, then couldn't a future Pope/Ecumenical Council rephrase the non-infallible parts? Obviously, certain proclamations of the Syllabus would fall under infallibility due to reflecting previous infallible declarations of either Ecumenical Councils, prior Popes or the ordinary and universal Magesterium.

The Syllabus was attahed to the Encyckical Quanta Cura which was addressed

To Our Venerable Brethren, all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops having favor and Communion of the Holy See.

Thus to the entire Church and definitely dealing with Faith and Morals, thus being an exercise of Papal Infallibility (not yet dogmatically defined).

From Father John Hardon, SJ, 'Modern Catholic Dictionary, published, with a post-Conciliar imprimatur, in 1980:
 

SYLLABUS OF PIUS IX. A series of eighty condemned propositions listing the prevalent errors that aimed at the undermining of society, morality, and religion. Every Catholic is expected to give exterior and interior assent to the condemnation of errors expressed in this syllabus.

Little hard to accept DH and 'give exterior and interior assent to the condemnation of errors expressed in this syllabus'!

I thought for Papal Infallibility to come into play, the Pope has to be speaking ex cathedra defining that a doctrine concerning faith or morals must be held by the entire Church. Was Pius IX speaking ex cathedra? Was he defining that a doctrine concerning faith or morals must be held by the entire Church? People usually say one looks for certain key words (i.e. 'We solemnly declare, define and profess....' etc) that give a clue to the use of Papal Infallibility.

It seems like, according to some Trads, anything said by a Pre-Vatican 2/Pre-John XXIII Pope is infallible whereas anything said by a "Post-Concilliar" Pope is heretical and modernist and whatnot. Who decides, when examining Papal documents from the Pre-Vatican 1 timeframe, whether Papal Infallibility was 'triggered'?

EDIT: In terms of Fr. Hardon's words, doesn't if the Syllabus DOES NOT fall under Papal Infallibility and thus can be modified by future Popes, then doesn't Vatican 2 (being an Ecumenical Council, even if pastoral only) and the words of other Popes supersede those of a Priest?

[jovan66102]

EDIT: In terms of Fr. Hardon's words, doesn't if the Syllabus DOES NOT fall under Papal Infallibility and thus can be modified by future Popes, then doesn't Vatican 2 (being an Ecumenical Council, even if pastoral only) and the words of other Popes supersede those of a Priest?

I will answer the rest of your post later, but I will point out that the imprimature, granted in 1980, means that notghing in Fr Hardon's 'Dictionary' is contrary to Catholic Faith and Morals.