Declaration on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecratio
To my mind, DH seems to re-interpret toleration with religious liberty. Intentional or not, it changed the language of how the Church spoke about this subject, and thus, disaster.
Reply
(07-02-2013, 08:05 PM)lumine Wrote: You said some of this is exactly what Vatican II did but you provided no specifics and no citations.
Look at the list of the reforms Pistoia advocated. You don't see anything similar to the doctrine Vatican II also expressed? It's not an exhaustive list, but if you read Auctorem Fidei itself, you'll see more similarities.
(07-02-2013, 08:05 PM)lumine Wrote: The Synod of Pistoia was a regional synod.
Yes, that's one difference, but we're discussing the doctrine Vatican II and the Synod of Pistoia expressed.
(07-02-2013, 08:05 PM)lumine Wrote: Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council.  They are two very different things.
Still, Pope Pius VI thought the errors Pistoia expressed were infecting the whole Church, which is why he addressed his bull Auctorem Fidei not just to the synod's participants.

Okay, I'll be more explicit. I've put in red what is similar in Pistoia to what Vatican II and its aftermath did:

- They wanted to rid the churches of much of their precious and exquisite decorations. Against Trent Session XXII "Canon VII.—If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety: let him be anathema.", which seems to contradict Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium §34 that "The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity", viz., minimalism, because "sumptuous display" (§124) is to be avoided; what is spiritually profitable is to be avoided?
- Reforming religious orders. They shouldn’t have churches open to the congregations. Their Divine Office would be diminished and they would be permitted to have only one or two Masses a day in their churches. The other priests would have to concelebrate.
- Suppressing processions in honor of Our Lady or the Saints.
- Removing pictures of the Sacred heart and any other pictures that express a “false dogma”
- Only one altar in every churches, which should be without relics or flowers This is because they wanted to emphasize that the Mass isn't something the priest does but what the people do in union with the priest; the priest merely "presides over the assembly" (SC §33).
- Use of the vernacular language in a loud voice so that the people would "understand" and be able to "actively participate"
- There would be exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament only once a year for the feast of Corpus Christi. A blessing with the ciborium could be given every Sunday.
- They advised against the Station of the Cross
Reply
(07-02-2013, 09:45 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: To my mind, DH seems to re-interpret toleration with religious liberty. Intentional or not, it changed the language of how the Church spoke about this subject, and thus, disaster.
Ratzinger's commentary on DH said that it was necessary to go beyond religious toleration and make religious liberty a fundamental human right. He didn't explain why, though.
Reply
(07-02-2013, 11:06 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(07-02-2013, 09:45 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: To my mind, DH seems to re-interpret toleration with religious liberty. Intentional or not, it changed the language of how the Church spoke about this subject, and thus, disaster.
Ratzinger's commentary on DH said that it was necessary to go beyond religious toleration and make religious liberty a fundamental human right. He didn't explain why, though.

Our former pope never claimed to be a Thomist, and in fact made a point of saying so. Go figure...
Reply
DustinsDad Wrote:To just use one example, the plain reading of DH seems to say man has a natural God given right to break the First Commandment.
Not quite. Rather, within due limits (which has subsequently been clarified as being none other than the common good) the State has no right to prevent him from breaking the First Commandment. A right to immunity regarding a certain thing is not the same as a right to do that very thing. It's a subtle, but very important, distinction. Unfortunately, it requires extensive catechesis, and does (I'll largely agree), if presented clumsily and without clarifying Tradition, to impel the ignorant towards religious indifferentism.
Reply
(07-01-2013, 11:57 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: Nonsense. The reason the Holy Father didn't reinstate them carte blanche is because they accuse the Magisterium of teaching formal heresy qua Vatican II - which is ridiculous.

Nonsense. Even a cursory reading (without reading in your own thoughts) of the various statements over the years from the SSPX make clear that the Society does not think that the documents of Vatican II contain "formal heresy".

One who asserts this either has only a superficial understanding of the SSPX, a loose terminology, or is willfully trying to distort. Out of charity, we will assume one of the first two.

"Heresy" has a very precise and technical theological meaning. According to St. Thomas (ST II:II q.11 a.1) heresy is willful error by one formerly professing the Catholic Faith, as regards dogma. In order for someone to be a heretic he must deny something which is of the deposit of the Faith (i.e. a de fide teaching).

So for instance, if I were to deny the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (a de fide teaching), I would be a heretic. However, if I were to deny the existence of limbo, I would be proximate to error, denying a common (nearly universal) and well-established theological opinion, which itself is not part of the deposit of Faith. In either case it would be objectively sinful do to so, though less serious for the denial of limbo.

The SSPX would argue, as the statement referenced by the OP in this thread does, that the documents of Vatican II contain theological errors, and purposefully ambiguous language. This is not to "accuse the Magisterium of teaching formal heresy qua Vatican II".

Theses errors concern the Constitution of the Church (Collegiality), Religious Liberty, and Relations with non-Catholics and non-Christians (Ecumenism). The loose, non-theological and ambiguous language used also permit such errors, or even encourage them.

But these matters are not dogma, even if they do touch dogmas, so these are not heresy, but theological error.

Further, the SSPX does not say that the Magisterium is teaching error, because the Magisterium is not Vatican II, nor the present Pope, but the teaching authority of the Church, which has been vested directly in the Pope, and indirectly in councils and bishops since the Apostles. And the Magisterium cannot contradict itself, because it is of divine institution. So, if we do see a true contradiction, it is not the Magisterium teaching. Such contradiction is impossible.

The SSPX says that there is error in the documents of Vatican II because certain points seem to almost certainly contradict clear Magisterial teachings. Plenty of texts exist to show where these points of contradiction are.

But the SSPX are not alone in this accusation. For instance Msgr. Bruno Gherardini has openly written (at the end of The Second Vatican Council: A Debate that Has Not Taken Place) he writes:

Quote:To summarize, we can say that philologically, historically, exegetically and theologically it is hard to find justification:
a) for the collegiality of bishops, as described in Lumen gentium 22 and 23;
b) for the manipulation that Dei Verbum 8-12 works on vital Church doctrines as Tradition, and those, which are no less important, the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible;
c) for other innovations … which concern the sacred liturgy, soteriology, the relationship between Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other religions in general.”

Of course Gherardini does not say that there are "errors", but that these points are clear innovations, without support from the previous Magisterium. If one considers that the Church has already spoken on these matters, it is clear that we have what seem like contradictions.

And the price of "reconciliation" with the Holy See has been made clear: "Accept Vatican II has no error and expresses the continuous teaching of the Church."

Quote:Why doesn't the Holy Father grant the Old Catholics canonical status? He's allowed to, by your argument.

Old Catholics are truly schismatic and heretical. They deny the authority of the Pope (in principle) and reject certain dogmas. The Society, even at worst rejects (only in practice, but not in principle) the authority of the Pope as regards certain matters of which they have serious and well-founded doubts, and denies no dogma.
Reply
(07-03-2013, 12:16 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:
DustinsDad Wrote:To just use one example, the plain reading of DH seems to say man has a natural God given right to break the First Commandment.
Not quite. Rather, within due limits (which has subsequently been clarified as being none other than the common good) the State has no right to prevent him from breaking the First Commandment. A right to immunity regarding a certain thing is not the same as a right to do that very thing. It's a subtle, but very important, distinction. Unfortunately, it requires extensive catechesis, and does (I'll largely agree), if presented clumsily and without clarifying Tradition, to impel the ignorant towards religious indifferentism.

St Thomas teaches that every negation is based on an affirmation. If man has a right not to be prevented from acting, he has a right to act. As applied here, if man has a God given right to do x (Catholic worship), then he has a God given right not to be prevented from doing x (Catholic worship). If man does not have a God given right to do
X (non-Catholic worship), then he does not have a God given right to be prevented from doing x (non-Catholic worship). The two are intrinsically connected. Either both propositions exist or both do not exist. Can't have one without the other. Your position is non-sensical.

The ''within due limits'' probably saves the document from explicit heresy or error in theory, but not in practice...as evidenced by the before mentioned USCCB fortnight meditations.
Reply
If we want to consult the Angelic Doctor, he also teaches that men, even infidels, are not to be prevented from raising their children as they see fit - almost exactly what Dignitatis Humanae describes.

Quote:Theses errors concern the Constitution of the Church (Collegiality), Religious Liberty, and Relations with non-Catholics and non-Christians (Ecumenism). The loose, non-theological and ambiguous language used also permit such errors, or even encourage them.
Interesting. Are you saying these three disputes are not questions of dogma?

Reply
(07-03-2013, 01:53 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote: If we want to consult the Angelic Doctor, he also teaches that men, even infidels, are not to be prevented from raising their children as they see fit - almost exactly what Dignitatis Humanae describes.
What St. Thomas describes is an instance of tolerance.

Christians allowed Jews living amongst them to raise their children according to their customs; but the State, pace Dignitatis Humanae, has a duty to prohibit non-Catholics from publicly spreading their errors, as the Church has no jurisdiction over non-Catholics.
Reply
(07-03-2013, 01:53 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote: Are you saying these three disputes are not questions of dogma?
They're novelties foreign to Catholic Tradition, novelties which neo-Modernists treat as "super-dogma."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)