SSPX response to 'Doctrinal Preamble' surprises Vatican

Then they are failing. They already admitted that this isn’t a doctrinal issue.

If the principle they are defending is that the Latin is the only language that can be used to perform the sacrament of the mass, then they are gravely mistaken.

“Spain’s secularization evolved out of a reaction to the Franco regime’s close ties to the Catholic Church.”

Spain was not the only country secularized. Vatican II teachings on religious liberty outlawed the principle of the Catholic state against previously established infallible doctrine. Vatican II—Dignitas Humanae is in direct contradiction with the infallible and immemorial teaching of Quanta Cura.

“Then they are failing. They already admitted that this isn’t a doctrinal issue.

If the principle they are defending is that the Latin is the only language that can be used to perform the sacrament of the mass, then they are gravely mistaken.”

You have no idea what you are talking about. Are you serious?

“You reject Vatican II.”

Like your claim about me and the Pope, I ask “where”?

Rather than attack me, why not answer the clear questions I ask?

Here, again:

“You stated that you believe the Pope was wrong.”

Really? Where did I say that?

{{{CRICKETS}}}

Then you should have no problem accepting it in full. :)

Good luck with that narses.

Spain had a long history with anti-clericalism in the century before Vatican II. I'm assuming you are Spanish by your screen name. Do you recall reading about the Carlist Wars? ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND THE DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY by Fr. William Most Because of the claims, and subsequent schism, made by Archbishop Lefebvre that the of Vatican II, , contradicted teachings of Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII, we will make a careful comparison of texts. We must add that something taught repeatedly on the Ordinary Magisterium level is infallible. Such seems to be the case with the teaching of these three Popes. Hence, no matter on what level Vatican II, was teaching in this Declaration, the charge amounts to a charge that a general council taught heresy. Then the promises of Christ would be at least largely void. It is of capital importance to use in all things, especially in this matter. God has made two promises, to protect the teaching of the Church, and to give free will to humans. At times He needs, as it were, to walk a tight line to carry out both. Therefore, in some texts - such as some of those below - we may suspect that the Pope had in his mind more strenuous things than what he set down on paper, we must say that A) TEXTS OF THE THREE POPES Gregory XVI, in of August 15, 1832. DS 2730: "We now continue with a most fertile cause of evils by which we deplore that the Church at present is being afflicted, that is, indifferentism, or that evil opinion. . . . that by any profession of faith whatsoever, the eternal salvation of the soul can be attained, if morals are kept to the norm of the right and good. . . . And from this must putrid font of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous view or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience should be asserted and claimed for just anyone." COMMENTS: The first sentence merely means that it does make a difference what faith one professes. But it does not mean that all Protestants are certainly damned - that would be the error of Feeney. Rather, one may be saved not by just any profession of faith, but a wrong one. Even Pius IX, famed for his strong words against indifferentism, insisted that "God. . . in His supreme goodness and clemency by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault." (, Aug 10, 1863: DS 2966). The second sentence merely rejects the idea that one has a to be in error. A right is a claim, ultimately coming from God, to have, to do, or to call for something. God surely gives no one a claim to be wrong. Vatican II, as we shall see, merely asserts one has a right not to be put in prison etc. for being wrong. The vehemence, and almost emotional quality of the language, makes one suspect Gregory XVI might have had in mind more drastic ideas than what he put down on paper. Pius IX, , Dec. 8, 1864. ASS 3. 162: [We have added numbers for convenience in commenting]". 1."For you know well. . . that there are not a few, who. . . applying that impious and absurd principle of what is called naturalism, dare to teach, 'that the best state of public society and civil progress absolutely requires that human society should be so constituted and governed, that there is no consideration of religion, as if it [religion] did not exist, or at least with no distinction made between true and false religions.'" COMMENTS: Pius IX here condemns a proposition, which is printed as a quotation, but the gives no source for it. It seems, then, that it was framed precisely to be a condemned and false proposition. Such condemned propositions are normally declared false if even one thing is wrong with them. This proposition is false because (a) the state as a state should worship God, and in the way He has made known that He wills. Therefore to ignore religion is wrong. (b)For the same reason, the state should make its own the true religion, and not treat all religions indiscriminately. This need not mean repression of false religions. Vatican II, in DIGNITATIS HUMANAE #1 taught: "It leave untouched the traditional Catholic doctrine about the moral duty of men towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ." This means, of course, an established Church. As we said, it would not imply repression of other churches. Even pagan Greece and Rome realized that the state as a state needs God's help: hence the state as a state must worship God. We add: If God makes known which way He wills to be worshipped, of course we must follow it. The application of that principle is difficult: (a) In the U. S. today we have legal positivism, which means that the state does not know what is morally right or wrong: all it can do is make things right or wrong by passing laws. So today it gives special favor to homosexuality! (b)We may ask: has history shown that the state is really incapable of determining what God wills, what is the true religion? Such ignorance could excuse the state from this duty. We think of the horrors of Islamic states such as Iran, who claim their laws are all ordered by God! And in ages when there was union of Church and State, it usually meant domination of the Church by the civil power. - Difficult choice! 2."And they do not hesitate to assert, contrary to the doctrine of Scripture, the Church, and the holy Fathers that 'that is the best condition of society in which the government does not acknowledge the duty of coercing by set penalties, the of the Catholic religion, except to the extent that public peace requires.'" COMMENT: Here again we have a condemned proposition, with no sources for it given in the AAS. We note that the Latin is very strong, whereas in English is often weak - a parking meter may say that for a few minutes overtime. says that means "treat with violence, injure, invade, profane, outrage." So it must be some really strong action positively against the Church. 3."As a result of the altogether false idea of the regime of society, they do not fear to promote that erroneous opinion. . . . called insanity by our Predecessor Gregory XVI, namely, 'that liberty of conscience and of worship is a of each man, which ought to be proclaimed by law and asserted in every rightly constituted society, and [it should be proclaimed] that the citizens have liberty , which should be restrained by no authority, whether or civil, in virtue of which they are able to privately and publicly manifest and declare , orally or in print. '" COMMENTS: As usual with condemned propositions, this one is made extremely strong, so it can most obviously be seen as wrong: (1) One does not have a to be wrong, as we said above. Vatican II merely asserted a right to freedom from coercion. (2) Note that the right includes "liberty of all sorts" - a sweeping thing, which would include even things contrary to public order and would go beyond the "due limits" of Vatican II DIGNITATIS HUMANAE §2. It would even let headhunters do as their god orders, i.e. , cut off heads. (3)It allows propagation of all ideas , no matter how foul, . Pius IX, Syllabus, Dec. 8, 1864. DS 2915, 2977 - 80: DS 2915: "Each one is free to embrace and profess that religion which, led by the light of reason, he thinks true." COMMENT: This is false because no one has a right to be wrong, as explained above. DS 2977:'In this our time it is no longer expedient for the Catholic religion to be considered as the sole religion of the state, excluding all other cults whatsoever." COMMENT: It is false because it would still be good for the state to profess the Catholic faith, but would not need to prohibit other faiths. Compare DIGNITATIS HUMANAE 1. DS 2978: "Hence, it is worthy of praise that in certain regions called Catholic it has been provided by law that for persons immigrating there it is permitted to hold public worship of each cult." COMMENT: For men to be able to hold false beliefs is not "worthy of praise", even though out of respect for conscience no one should be to act against even an erroneous conscience. But, as Pius XII taught in (text to be given below) the common good of the universal Church requires that error be permitted. In fact, in determined circumstances, God does not even give the state a right to suppress erroneous things, namely, when the common good of Church and state call for tolerance. DS 2979:"It is not true to say that civil liberty for each cult, and likewise full power given to all to manifest opinions and thoughts more easily leads to corrupting the morals and souls of people, and to propagating indifferentism." COMMENT: We notice the word "any. . . whatsoever". That makes the statement outrageously broad: one could then say there is no harm in advocating cutting off other people's heads as ordered by the gods of the heaDignitatis humanaeunters, or homosexuality, or polygamy. DS 2980:"The Pope can and should reconcile and adjust himself with progress, with liberalism, and with recent attitudes of civil society." COMMENT: He cannot reconcile himself to such ideas as the notion that error has rights, or that the state should be indifferent to religion. Leo XIII, Nov. 1, 1885 ASS 18: 1."So too, that liberty of thinking and of publishing , with , is not a good by its own nature over which human society should rightly , but is the font and origin of many evils. . . for this reason, a state errs from the rule and prescription of nature if it allows a license of opinion and actions to such an extent that without penalty it is permitted to lead minds away from the truth and souls from virtue." COMMENT: Again, we note the deliberately sweeping language condemning a liberty that can , and at all. Surely that is not something society should over. 2."Really, if the Church judges that it is not permitted that various kinds of divine worship have with the true religion, yet it does no for this reason condemn the rulers of states who, to attain some great good or prevent evil, patiently allow each [kind of cult] to have place in the state." COMMENTS: Here the Pope concedes that all kinds of religions can be permitted as long as they are not given the same rights as the true religion. He means that the state should worship by the true religion and not by the others. This is the same as the thought of DIGNITATIS HUMANAE #1. Leo XIII, , June 20, 1888. ASS 20. 1."It is scarcely necessary to say that there can be no right for a freedom that is . . . . For if a of speaking and writing be conceded , nothing is going to remain holy and inviolate, not even those greatest, most true judgments of nature, which are to be considered as the common and most noble patrimony of the human race." COMMENT: Again, the Pope speaks against most extreme things. 2. (a bit earlier in the same document):". . . while not conceding to things that are not true and honorable, it [the Church] does not refuse to let public authority endure these, that is, to avoid some greater evil, or to attain or keep some greater good. The most provident God, though He is infinite in power and can do all things, yet permits evils in the world, in part, s o as not to impede greater good, in part so greater evils will not follow. In ruling states, it is right to imitate the Ruler of the World." COMMENT: Such things have no right to exist, since God does not give them a claim: no one has a right to be wrong. Pius XII, , Dec. 6, 1953. AAS 45: The Pope asked: "Can it be that in determined circumstances, He [God] does not give to man any mandate, or impose a duty, finally, that He gives no right to impede and to repress that which is erroneous or false?. . . Christ in the parable of the cockle gave the following admonition: Let it be that the cockle grow in the field of the world along with the good seed, for the sake of the harvest."[Cf. Mt. 13:24-30]. COMMENT: We notice he said that "in determined circumstances" God does not even give a right to repress. What are these circumstances? A bit farther on he added: He [the Catholic statesman] in his decision will let himself be guided by the harmful consequences which arise with tolerance, compared with those that will be found in the international community by way of the acceptance of tolerance. . . . in such individual cases, the attitude of the Church is determined by the preservation and in consideration of the common good, the common good of the Church, and of the State in individual states on the one hand, and on the other hand, the common good of the universal Church. . . ." Conclusions from the above Papal texts: 1. Error has no rights, since rights are a claim given ultimately by God. He gives no claim to error. This does not condemn the idea that people may have a right not to be imprisoned etc. for error. DIGNITATIS HUMANAE will affirm that. 2. Yet the common good of the state and the Church may dictate the need of tolerance of error. Pius XII added, in that God does not even give a right to suppress error in circumstances in which the common good requires tolerance. 3. It is false to say that one can be saved just any faith. This is the sense of the strong condemnations of indifferentism. But one may say that one could be saved an erroneous faith (cf. Pius IX, LG 16 will say it more clearly as will 10 of John Paul II. ). 4. The state as a state should worship God, in the way in which He has made known He wishes it. This need not call for suppression of other faiths - cf. #2 above. DIGNITATIS HUMANAE # 1 also states this. 5. The strongest statement above is in the of Pius IX when he says that the state in suppressing error must do more than just suppress what is demanded by public order. We have not yet seen what DIGNITATIS HUMANAE does on this score. We will see that it too demands more than what public order calls for, in ## 4 & 7. 6. There is no right of publication of just anything. There are some limits. APPENDIX II) TEXTS OF VATICAN II, DIGNITATIS HUMANAE (Sectional numbers given in margin) 1. a)". . . it leaves untouched the traditional Catholic doctrine about the moral duty of men and societies to the true religion and the only Church of Christ." COMMENT: The Council reaffirms completely the traditional teaching on the obligation of the state to profess Catholicism. Mere reason shows that: just as an individual must worship God for his own needs, so the state as state must worship for its needs. Pagan Greece and Rome thought this way. We add: If God has shown the way He wills to be worshipped, of course, there is an obligation to follow it. This need not mean repressing other faiths of course. One could still ask: Has the state historically shown itself incapable of determining what is the true religion? Cases like Islam make one wonder. On the other hand, without a union we are apt to get legal positivism, such as the U. S. in practice has today: the state does not know what is right or wrong in itself - all it can do is make something right or wrong by passing a law. So today it even favors homosexuality. b): "Besides, in treating of this religious liberty, the Sacred Synod intends to develop the doctrine of recent Popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and about the constitutional order of society." COMMENT: Since the council intends to evolve, it did not mean to contradict. The Church has long evolved various teachings without contradicting. It is significant that John Courtney Murray denied the teaching of 1a above. Therefore the Council did not entirely follow him. Some have noted that the Council did not give references to the more recent Popes. Actually, Leo XIII, in , did warn against coercing consciences (DS 3177): "The Church is accustomed to take care that no one be forced to embrace the Catholic faith when unwilling, as Augustine wisely reminded:"A person cannot believe if he does not do it willingly." Cf. DS 3246, 3251. And Pius XII in , as we saw above, taught that in determined circumstances, God does not even give the state any right to repress error. This applies when the public good calls for it. Pius XII seems to imply these circumstances are always present:AAS 45, pp. 799, 801. 2. 1."This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious liberty. Liberty of this kind consists in this, that all persons should be immune from coercion either on the part of individuals, or of social societies, and of any human power at all, and this in such a way that in a religious matter neither should anyone be forced to act against his conscience, or impeded from acting according to his conscience privately and publicly. either alone or in association with others, within due limits." COMMENT: Since this section was hammered out with much labor, it must be interpreted with equal care. We note in addition that John Courtney Murray, in his introduction to this declaration in the Abbott edition of Vatican II said (p. 674): "The conciliar affirmation of the principle of freedom was narrowly limited - in the text." He thinks it will in practice be given wider scope or have wider effects. It is important to note that the focus is on : a man must not be forced to act against his conscience, or impeded from acting according to his conscience in private and in public. This seems to mean that one must not violate his conscience when the conscience something. What if his conscience merely permits something? It is not clear that a person has that added right, for the purpose of not forcing action against conscience seems to be that no one should force a man to sin. There would be sin in going against a positive order of conscience to either do or to omit something. But if a conscience merely if he merely omitted something that he was free to do but not required to do. In that event, if a Protestant's conscience him to write to attack the Catholic Church, but did not command that, this declaration probably would not say he was to be free of coercion, since the omission would not be sinful for him. It is not likely that his conscience would be apt to him to attack. Though conscience is not likely to publishing an on Catholic doctrine, it could easily order a man to publish , and to join in social worship. About the words "within due limits"-- they are not precise. Someone might claim they meant the same as "public peace" in the document of Pius IX. Pius IX clearly requires the state to do more than just maintain public peace in this matter. Howsoever Vatican II also requires more. In # 4: "Religious communities also have the right not to be impeded in orally and publicly teaching and testifying to their faith. However, in spreading religious faith and practices, And in #7: "Since ;it should not be done in an arbitrary manner or unfairly favoring one side, but according to juridical , which are required for the effective protection of rights for all citizens, and for the peaceful settlement of conflict of rights, and by a sufficient care for that honorable public peace which is the well-ordered living together in true justice, " We conclude: Vatican II does require much more than keeping public peace. It requires that the sects . #2. 2: "It also declares that the right to religious liberty is really founded in the very dignity of the human person. . . . According to this dignity, all are impelled by their own nature, and are bound by moral obligation to seek the truth. . . . They cannot satisfy this obligation. . . unless they have psychological freedom and at the same time immunity from external coercion." COMMENT: The coercion in mind is that of physical force, which would come from the civil state. It does not rule out the use of the divinely given authority of Christ to proclaim His truth and to say all are obligated by His divine authority to accept it. Therefore Archbishop Lefebvre was completely without justification in his claims.

“You have no idea what you are talking about. Are you serious?”

I already asked that question, and the answer I recieved confirms that I am spot on about it. You raised up Trent and what Trent had to say about no mass in the vernacular.

Now you turn around and say that I have no idea, yeah, sorry. Ain’t buying it. Sacraments are equally valid no matter what language it is in.

“Spain was not the only country secularized. Vatican II teachings on religious liberty outlawed the principle of the Catholic state against previously established infallible doctrine. Vatican II—Dignitas Humanae is in direct contradiction with the infallible and immemorial teaching of Quanta Cura.”

This I want to hear. Explain.

I suggest that you read up on the issue before posting further.

If it were as simple as accept/reject "Vatican II," this could have been resolved long ago.

But the reality is much more complex. The documents of the Second Vatican Council are numerous and, unfortunately, comparatively vague, compared with those of prior councils.

That is where the problem comes in. When Dignitatis Humanae calls for religious freedom, to what degree is a moral right implied (rather than a legal right, which still raises questions about the relationship of the Church to the state)? Furthermore, to the degree that it contradicts previous Church teaching, which is the correct view? That which came before, or the new teaching? And what of the contradiction? Does that weaken or even nullify the validity of the Church?

Some issues are not even directly connected to Vatican II. For instance, can doctrine "develop" to come to mean precisely the opposite of what was once taught? That is what seems to be happening on the death penalty.

If it were only about restoring the Mass, SSPX would probably already be in full communion. But there are much bigger fish to fry.

I don't have the answers. I'm just a regular Catholic who generally assists at the Ordinary Form. But, I recognize that the SSPX has raised a number of legitimate issues, which must be resolved, whether or not they are ultimately reconciled with Rome.

Incidentally, the SSPX is not "schismatic," at least according to Cardinal Castrillion, the previous president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Vatican II—Dignitas Humanae is in direct contradiction with the infallible and immemorial teaching of Quanta Cura.”

This I want to hear. Explain.

Consider this conflict between the infallible Quanta Cura and Vatican II: Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura 1864:

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," 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."[...]
Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter.

conflicts with

Vatican II, Dignitas Humanae 1965:

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.

Nobody can be converted to Catholicism at the point of the sword, period.

When Vatican II opened, World War II was fresh in the minds of the council fathers. In Croatia, the Ustasha used the sword to forcibly convert Serbian Orthodox Christians to Catholicism with the participation of the Franciscans.

Dignitatis Humanae was a direct result of this sort of experience.

You appeal to WWII experience cannot overcome the objective evidence of Quanta Cura. The Church had always prohibited forced conversion. Therefore, WWII did not justify Dignitatis Humanae. Any teaching that conflicts with infallible doctrine is erroneous, by definition.

Is it just to require acceptance of Dignitatis Humanae (and rejection of the infallible Quanta Cura) in order for the SSPX to be considered in “full” communion?

Quanta Cura wasn’t infallible.

Did you read the late Fr. William Most’s commentary?
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LEFEBVRE.TXT

I did not see where Fr. Most said Quanta Cura wasn’t infallible.

Pope Pius IX declared the infallibility of Quanta Cura with the invocation:

“Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter.”

There was no equivalent declaration the infallibility for the conflicting doctrines of Vatican II. The infallible Quanta Cura trumps the non-infallible Vatican II. It is ludicrous to demand that the SSPX deny the infallible Quanta Cura.

There’s no conflict there. Religious freedom is a right like the rest of the others under natural law.

At present, no, but their refusal to accede to the pope I believe is indication that they are still in schism.

As for the rest, extra ecclesia nulla salus, is wrong. I agree, it’s a big issue, but again, the Pope got it right while the Lefebvrists are wrong on the issue.

You are saying Quanta Cura is wrong?

What about the Catholic states that built Christendom? Were they heretical?

Again, if it’s got nothing to do with mass in the vernacular, than why did you cite XXIII of Trent? Your reference was specifically to what the council had to say about mass in the vernacular.