Can one be traditional and not support the SSPX?

[jovan66102]

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.

As I pointed out, it was in the style of the time, addressed to the entire world and it uses very clear language invoking the Apostolic Authority of the See of Peter:

6. Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is entrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.

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'?

As I pointed out in another thread in replying to you, there is disagreement on this matter with the 'German theologian' claiming no Pope has ever exercised Infallibilty and the average Irish PP thinking that the Pope's every sneeze is infallible.

However, in this case, we have an Encyclical which is simply restating the Magisterial Teaching of the Church, using stern words, e.g.  Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.. I do not see how any argument can be made in the realm of sanity that it does not fall under the Charism of Infallibility.

[petrelton]

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.

If you look at the context of Vatican I it was a major defence of the sovereign rights of the papal states. Therefore if you are a catholic nation with a catholic government then you are within your rights to favour and protect catholic schools, churches, values and observances. But was V1 suggesting that muslims and other strangers living in those lands should be dragged by the hair into catholic churches, or that stormtroopers should bash down their doors and arrest them as they pray before their private shrines. Of course not. That would be an insult to the dignity of free will of the individual.

So we are talking about different things here. V1 is talking about the rights of the church to be officially fostered favoured and protected in catholic land and to have primacy of influence when it comes to the setting of social policies whereas as V2 is protecting basic human rights of free will against coercion. The other thing to remember is that the syllabus of errors never did come up in the council and very few of its points were even discussed at V1. If it had then the views of the worldwide bishops may well have been expressed in much the same way as they were in V2 (without the ambiguous language though). I have little doubt that if that had happened that V1 would have toned down the catholic supremacy arguments presented in the syllabus. This would be for the simple reason that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Catholics in heathen lands would have received greater persecution and intolerance as a consequence of any curtailment of religious liberty that the nations observed in catholic lands. Therefore the church needs to be universal and mindful of her members in heathen lands not just in the catholic heartland.

In the twentieth century the church was coming to terms with the enormity of its pastoral responsibilities not just to its far flung and persecuted flock but also to the nations. Through great trial and struggle this is beautifully expressed in Dignitatis Humanae . It is true that DH gives up many of the priviledges of the church in the catholic lands. But this was happening anyway as we can see with the various agreements between the church and political figures during the second world war where the church made numerous painful concessions to the state.

But what is the major point of DH. It is that man's response to the Catholic faith must be freely given as an act of conscience and not through any kind of compulsion. Jesus himself upheld the authority of the state and rebuked Peter for trying to take a militant action for the faith. In this vein the church has always spread open arms to the nations offering them freely and without compulsion the salvation of our Lord. V2 speaks elegantly to this timeless Christian principle and is thoroughly orthodox. 2000 bishops of the church believed so. 70 bishops disagreed. An overwhelming endorsement for the work of the council. DH also reminds all Catholics even those in government to remain true to their allegiance to the one true church and do all their duty in fostering it and building it up. A preference and support of the true religion does not by extension prove a harsh repression of the false religion. The syllabus of errors protects the right of the Catholic nation to prefer and support the state religion over the false religion. V2 protects the rights of all men to practice their religion freely and without harsh repression.

[jovan66102]

If you look at the context of Vatican I it was a major defence of the sovereign rights of the papal states. Therefore if you are a catholic nation with a catholic government then you are within your rights to favour and protect catholic schools, churches, values and observances. But was V1 suggesting that muslims and other strangers living in those lands should be dragged by the hair into catholic churches, or that stormtroopers should bash down their doors and arrest them as they pray before their private shrines. Of course not. That would be an insult to the dignity of free will of the individual.

So we are talking about different things here. V1 is talking about the rights of the church to be officially fostered favoured and protected in catholic land and to have primacy of influence when it comes to the setting of social policies whereas as V2 is protecting basic human rights of free will against coercion. The other thing to remember is that the syllabus of errors never did come up in the council and very few of its points were even discussed at V1. If it had then the views of the worldwide bishops may well have been expressed in much the same way as they were in V2 (without the ambiguous language though). I have little doubt that if that had happened that V1 would have toned down the catholic supremacy arguments presented in the syllabus. This would be for the simple reason that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Catholics in heathen lands would have received greater persecution and intolerance as a consequence of any curtailment of religious liberty that the nations observed in catholic lands. Therefore the church needs to be universal and mindful of her members in heathen lands not just in the catholic heartland.

In the twentieth century the church was coming to terms with the enormity of its pastoral responsibilities not just to its far flung and persecuted flock but also to the nations. Through great trial and struggle this is beautifully expressed in Dignitatis Humanae . It is true that DH gives up many of the priviledges of the church in the catholic lands. But this was happening anyway as we can see with the various agreements between the church and political figures during the second world war where the church made numerous painful concessions to the state.

But what is the major point of DH. It is that man's response to the Catholic faith must be freely given as an act of conscience and not through any kind of compulsion. Jesus himself upheld the authority of the state and rebuked Peter for trying to take a militant action for the faith. In this vein the church has always spread open arms to the nations offering them freely and without compulsion the salvation of our Lord. V2 speaks elegantly to this timeless Christian principle and is thoroughly orthodox. 2000 bishops of the church believed so. 70 bishops disagreed. An overwhelming endorsement for the work of the council. DH also reminds all Catholics even those in government to remain true to their allegiance to the one true church and do all their duty in fostering it and building it up. A preference and support of the true religion does not by extension prove a harsh repression of the false religion. The syllabus of errors protects the right of the Catholic nation to prefer and support the state religion over the false religion. V2 protects the rights of all men to practice their religion freely and without harsh repression.

More modernist word twisting and weaseling. The fact is that the plain words of the Syllabus, summing up 1800 years of the Infallible Magisterium are contradicted by DH, a Decree of an non-infallible, pastoral Council. If you are unable to see that, I think there is very little hope that you will ever discover the Divine and Catholic Faith in its fulness, but I will continue to pray that you do,

[petrelton]

If you look at the context of Vatican I it was a major defence of the sovereign rights of the papal states. Therefore if you are a catholic nation with a catholic government then you are within your rights to favour and protect catholic schools, churches, values and observances. But was V1 suggesting that muslims and other strangers living in those lands should be dragged by the hair into catholic churches, or that stormtroopers should bash down their doors and arrest them as they pray before their private shrines. Of course not. That would be an insult to the dignity of free will of the individual.

So we are talking about different things here. V1 is talking about the rights of the church to be officially fostered favoured and protected in catholic land and to have primacy of influence when it comes to the setting of social policies whereas as V2 is protecting basic human rights of free will against coercion. The other thing to remember is that the syllabus of errors never did come up in the council and very few of its points were even discussed at V1. If it had then the views of the worldwide bishops may well have been expressed in much the same way as they were in V2 (without the ambiguous language though). I have little doubt that if that had happened that V1 would have toned down the catholic supremacy arguments presented in the syllabus. This would be for the simple reason that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Catholics in heathen lands would have received greater persecution and intolerance as a consequence of any curtailment of religious liberty that the nations observed in catholic lands. Therefore the church needs to be universal and mindful of her members in heathen lands not just in the catholic heartland.

In the twentieth century the church was coming to terms with the enormity of its pastoral responsibilities not just to its far flung and persecuted flock but also to the nations. Through great trial and struggle this is beautifully expressed in Dignitatis Humanae . It is true that DH gives up many of the priviledges of the church in the catholic lands. But this was happening anyway as we can see with the various agreements between the church and political figures during the second world war where the church made numerous painful concessions to the state.

But what is the major point of DH. It is that man's response to the Catholic faith must be freely given as an act of conscience and not through any kind of compulsion. Jesus himself upheld the authority of the state and rebuked Peter for trying to take a militant action for the faith. In this vein the church has always spread open arms to the nations offering them freely and without compulsion the salvation of our Lord. V2 speaks elegantly to this timeless Christian principle and is thoroughly orthodox. 2000 bishops of the church believed so. 70 bishops disagreed. An overwhelming endorsement for the work of the council. DH also reminds all Catholics even those in government to remain true to their allegiance to the one true church and do all their duty in fostering it and building it up. A preference and support of the true religion does not by extension prove a harsh repression of the false religion. The syllabus of errors protects the right of the Catholic nation to prefer and support the state religion over the false religion. V2 protects the rights of all men to practice their religion freely and without harsh repression.

More modernist word twisting and weaseling. The fact is that the plain words of the Syllabus, summing up 1800 years of the Infallible Magisterium are contradicted by DH, a Decree of an non-infallible, pastoral Council. If you are unable to see that, I think there is very little hope that you will ever discover the Divine and Catholic Faith in its fulness, but I will continue to pray that you do,

Your response here demonstrates that you are simply unable to grasp the issues at hand. There is no question that nobody gets to bishop level unless they can think properly. What I wrote is not even that difficult. In fact it is plain speaking. But I have no doubt that most of the bishops understand these issues far more comprehensively and deeply than do I.
Its shameful to think that people with grade school intellect puff themselves up to the point they think they can judge bishops and label them with derogatory terms.

[jovan66102]

Its shameful to think that people with grade school intellect puff themselves up to the point they think they can judge bishops and label them with derogatory terms.

Again, if you are unable to see a plain contradiction when it stares you in the face, there is little hope for you. I'm still waiting for a real response to my posting re: Fr John Courtney Murray's opinion on DH which you weaseled out of answering, One of the principal author's of DH publicly stated that it changed Church teaching 180 degrees and you're still trying to deny it. It seems to me that you are almost completely lacking in the logical facukty.

[Oldavid]

Oh dear!
Can I say that  both sides seem to have a point worth considering?
Can we flog it out  without the personal calumny?

[IrishCowboy]

Oh dear!
Can I say that  both sides seem to have a point worth considering?
Can we flog it out  without the personal calumny?

The problem is that there are those on this forum whose sole purpose seems to be seeking out threads on the SSPX and using them (no matter what the actual topic is) to bash the SSPX's position.  So every thread on the SSPX turns in to a double-digit-page-count nightmare that people eventually end up ignoring.  It's sad, but true.  People are just out there "trolling" for opportunities to bash -- that's why they get called trolls!

[Walty]

Oh dear!
Can I say that  both sides seem to have a point worth considering?
Can we flog it out  without the personal calumny?

The problem is that there are those on this forum whose sole purpose seems to be seeking out threads on the SSPX and using them (no matter what the actual topic is) to bash the SSPX's position.  So every thread on the SSPX turns in to a double-digit-page-count nightmare that people eventually end up ignoring.  It's sad, but true.  People are just out there "trolling" for opportunities to bash -- that's why they get called trolls!

That goes both ways.  There are a number of people here who seek out anyone with reservations about the SSPX solely so they can tell them how un-Trad and un-Catholic they are. 

[glgas]

More modernist word twisting and weaseling. The fact is that the plain words of the Syllabus, summing up 1800 years of the Infallible Magisterium are contradicted by DH, a Decree of an non-infallible, pastoral Council. If you are unable to see that, I think there is very little hope that you will ever discover the Divine and Catholic Faith in its fulness, but I will continue to pray that you do,

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

Here is the syllabus. The documents deals entirely with XIX century problems, which started latest in the 18th century. It also never was declared as infallible document, and it quotes mostly Pius IX own Encyclicals.

It is a sad fact that neither the Syllabus, nor the Pascendi

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

by St Pius X, was effective, the modernism increased, the Papal authority decreased, both significantly.

The Tridentinum resulted in the open separation of the Church from the protestantism, the Syllabus and Pascendi were not able to create a viable stable group of the faithful. Sad fact.

By the fifties it was evident that negatives can not sustain not even the survival. The negation of the reality (the Church was not able to keep alive tha Papal state)  stickly led to the mostly aborted attempt of the Vatican Council to offer positive changes. The Syllabus and the atimodernist oath instucted the priest what not to do, without giving any clue toward the right direction. Pius XII wanted to show the positive especially in the Divino afflante Spiritu

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html

and Humani generis

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

but apparently it was too lateOn the council the bishops were indecisive, and the enemy with the help of the experts prevented to show the viable resolutions.

God knows what he wants out of this, but the resolution will not be to revert the syllabus. The Church does not have any power to dictate.

However it is true not only for St Paul

@ Cor 12:9 And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

[Zakhur]

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?

No, nsper.  It's not that simple.  The pope can speak or write infallibly without speaking ex cathedra IF, when he speaks or writes, he agrees with Tradition.  I forget which exercise of the magisterium this is; authentic, ordinary, extraordinary.  Anyway, if what he says, without ex cathedra, does not agree with Tradition, not only are the faithful not bound to believe it, but the Church's indefectibility remains intact as well.

Of course, I could be totally wrong...

[Oldavid]

Oh come on you lot,
The Catholic faith long pre-dated rules and regulations.
What seems to have been lost in all this is;

It was true: it is true.
It was false: it is false.

[devotedknuckles]

Walty
Who does what u claim? I rarely see people here start threads to purposely troll for Notards. On the contrary its Notards like nutser and pissiltron who eaither start threads for the purpose of trolling or enter serious threads to derail them
Vut I'm open to see who does what u say
Pls show me

[Walty]

Walty
Who does what u claim? I rarely see people here start threads to purposely troll for Notards. On the contrary its Notards like nutser and pissiltron who eaither start threads for the purpose of trolling or enter serious threads to derail them
Vut I'm open to see who does what u say
Pls show me

Everytime a thread is started (like this one) in which someone is asking an innocent question there are a group who fly in like vultures just waiting to tell someone they aren't Catholic for having reservations about the SSPX.  Certainly you can see that, at least, happening from both sides.

[Zakhur]

No one has accused ME of not being Catholic, despite the fact that I have reservations about the SSPX.  The reason I have not been to one of their chapels is precisely that.

But the difference between myself and others is that I don't flaunt the opinion that the SSPX is a pack of rebel Protestants.  Anyone who does that is asking for it.  They better just expect the worst.

[petrelton]

No one has accused ME of not being Catholic, despite the fact that I have reservations about the SSPX.  The reason I have not been to one of their chapels is precisely that.

But the difference between myself and others is that I don't flaunt the opinion that the SSPX is a pack of rebel Protestants.  Anyone who does that is asking for it.  They better just expect the worst.

The SSPX is a pack of rebel Protestants