Author Topic: Catechism Sold In SSPX/Church Cannot Error (Read 4731 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** February 18, 2010, 07:49:30 PM »

Catechism Sold In SSPX/Church Cannot Error.

At http://sedevacante-pax.blogspot.com/2010/02/catechism-sold-in-sspxchurch-cannot.html

you will find pages from a catechism put together by the SSPX in Asia. It is a catechism that is a typical Catholic catechism and updated to the time of His Holiness Pope Pius XII. (Click on catechism pages to see a blown up image which is more visible.)

Quoting from the page below the cover with the picture of Our Lord on it we read:

"The Church cannot teach error, because it was founded by Christ, God Himself," and further on we read: "In an institution etablished by God for the salvation of men, error in doctrine is unthinkable."

On the next page we read:

"Jesus Christ commanded all men to listen and obey the Church, under pain of damnation. If His Church can teach error, then He is responsible for the error, by commanding all to obey."

And later we read: "Has the Church in fact proved itself infallible?-It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church, from the twentieth century back to the first, has not once ceased to teach a doctrine on faith or morals previously held, and with the same interpretation; the Church has proved itself infallible.

1. It is a historical fact that not one Pope, whatever what he was in his private life, has ever taught error... The Church cannot change its teaching on faith and morals.

It is clear, it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Church is incapable of error or of leading Her children into error. The Pope, when he teaches, when he promulgates general disciplines for the Church, when he establishes and promulgates laws for the Church, cannot error, for when the Pope does such things he and the Church are one. Are we convinced of this?

Now, if a true Pope promulgated the new Code of Canon Law for example, and this Code contains error (see Canon 844 which allows for sacrilege under certain circuмstances), then it is absolutely impossible that he have been a true Pope, for then, as the catechism above says, Christ Himself would be responsible for this error. Unthinkable.

As the catechism above relates, it is clear indeed, a Pope has never taught error, nor will a true Pope ever do so! This is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Therefore, either the teachings of VII, and the promulgated laws and disciplines that came with VII are orthodox and to be accepted as Catholic by every Catholic, or, they are not Catholic, and the authority behind them is no true authority at all.

We reproduce the text above precisely because we have had arguments with souls who are of the SSPX, and they have insisted that the Pope can in fact teach error outside of solemn definitions.

But the very catechism sold within the chapels of the Society explains clearly:

"It is a historical fact that not one Pope, whatever what he was in his private life, has ever taught error..." & "Jesus Christ promised to preserve the Church from error" this is because the Holy Ghost prevents the Pope and thus the Church from doing so. It does not mean that a Pope is impeccable, that he cannot sin, but when he teaches concerning Faith or Morals, whether it be teachings contained in the Extraordinary or Ordinary Universal Magesterium, there can be no danger of error. Period.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #1 on:** February 18, 2010, 08:03:43 PM »

Upon reading the post we published regarding the SSPX catechism and its very clear teaching on the Infallibility and the Church's freedom from all error, the Rev. Fr. Soliman kindly sent us some more information to supplement that particular post.

He wrote:

"I hope those who read your latest post on the catechism My Catholic Faith will make them understand why the resist and recognize stand is erroneous. One has to change his catechism if he insists that a true Pope can teach us doctrinal error. I would like to add that in page 137 of My Catholic Faith on the question of the sphere of infallibilty speaking of a General Council that once it is confirmed by a Pope it is binding on all Christians. So in principle all ecuмenical councils are infallible and binding when promulgated or confirmed by a true Pope. Now, we know that Vatican II has the appearance of a legitimate ecuмenical council but we know also that it taught errors and heresies. For the SSPX and other groups allied to them, they will answer that Vatican II is not infallible because it is only a pastoral council and therefore not binding and its decrees must be interpreted in the light of Tradition. If they only apply the principle of the catechism and the teaching of pre-conciliar theologians, they would not have fall into error. They don't need to invent a new doctrine if they only apply what was taught before. Applying the principle that a General Council is binding once confirmed by a Pope, we have only two alternatives to the problem of conscience caused by Vatican II. Either Paul VI was Pope or not. If he was Pope, since he confirmed Vatican II, then we must submit. If he was a false Pope, then Vatican II has no authority because it is not confirmed by a Pope but by an anti-pope. Tanquerey in his Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae said that an ecuмenical council without a Pope does not enjoy infallibility (p.143,#264, Concilii oecuмenici auctoritas ). The answer to the non-infallibility of Vatican II lies on the question whether Paul VI was Pope or not. All other answers will just cloud the issue." The Rev. Fr. Joven Soliman.

Caminus · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2010, 08:16:44 PM »

On the contrary, a true Pope can err, even greviously. He can even harm the faith and still remain Pope. Your position is very close to that of Huss and Wycliff. And it is because there is, on your part and people who think like you, a consistent obscuring of the doctrine of infallibility.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** February 19, 2010, 05:57:31 AM »

Well, the Fathers at Vatican I did extensive research into the question and found dozens upon dozens of errors taught by popes (including some contradictions and reversals). And this research helped form the language for their dogmatic definition. So, no, it's not absolutely the case that a pope can never teach error.

On the other hand, to say that the Pope can promulgate a harmlful, Protestantized, "bastard" rite of Mass crosses the line in terms of what's possible. Yet, no, not every sentence in every papal encyclical should be considered tantamount to an infallible dogmatic definition. That would border on the absurd and give Protestants ammunition in attacking their straw-man concept of infallibility--which this kind of position actually legitimizes. I've seen Protestant websites pointing out contradictions and reversals in papal teaching in order to attack the dogma of infallibility.

Caminus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 19, 2010, 06:54:09 AM »

Quote

On the other hand, to say that the Pope can promulgate a harmlful, Protestantized, "bastard" rite of Mass crosses the line in terms of what's possible.

Obviously not, because it just happened.

SJB · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2010, 08:20:03 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
On the other hand, to say that the Pope can promulgate a harmlful, Protestantized, "bastard" rite of Mass crosses the line in terms of what's possible.

Obviously not, because it just happened.

Ummm...Caminus...maybe he wasn't a true pope. You are assuming his papacy as fact.

The fact (of evil fruit, as in a "protestantized bastard rite of mass") creates a doubt at least. The doubt is about another fact we had previously regarded as certain, and which was in turn the foundation of the a priori certitude that whatever came from Rome was "good." That fundamental fact was that the man claiming to be pope was pope; the "fact" that you insist overcomes all other facts, even the fact of evil fruits.

Belloc · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2010, 08:24:22 AM »

some felt at the time of Alexander VI that he was not a valid Pope since there was strong evidence of simony......none teh less, we did not-if this is true-have a vacant seat for 52 yrs or for some, 100 yrs..

SJB · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2010, 08:28:47 AM »

Quote from: Belloc

some felt at the time of Alexander VI that he was not a valid Pope since there was strong evidence of simony......none teh less, we did not-if this is true-have a vacant seat for 52 yrs or for some, 100 yrs..

I am speaking of evil fruits, not some impediment to an election.

Caminus · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2010, 08:34:46 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Caminus
Quote
On the other hand, to say that the Pope can promulgate a harmlful, Protestantized, "bastard" rite of Mass crosses the line in terms of what's possible.

Obviously not, because it just happened.

Ummm...Caminus...maybe he wasn't a true pope. You are assuming his papacy as fact.

The fact (of evil fruit, as in a "protestantized bastard rite of mass") creates a doubt at least. The doubt is about another fact we had previously regarded as certain, and which was in turn the foundation of the a priori certitude that whatever came from Rome was "good." That fundamental fact was that the man claiming to be pope was pope; the "fact" that you insist overcomes all other facts, even the fact of evil fruits.

I don't draw arbitrary limits in my own mind and then draw conclusions from these premises. Your conclusion may be airtight according to your own preconceived notions, but that's as far as it goes. Your "certitude" involves an assumption. After all, Honorius was labeled an "instrument of the Devil" by Pope Agatho. Who are you to say that a Pope could not do such and such? The dogmatic fact must hold and then conclusions can be deduced.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** February 19, 2010, 08:59:42 AM »

We are NOT talking about setting "arbitrary limits" based on our "preconceived notions". Just read any theologian regarding the Church's disciplinary infallibility; they all regard it as at least "theologically certain" and others proximate to faith. That takes the cake. Now the Church's disciplinary infallibility is something we made up arbitrarily. See, it's this kind of harmful thinking which comes from the SSPX dogmatic position to which I object.

If the Church can promulgate a "bastard" rite of Mass, then the Church's note of holiness and Her infallibility become utterly meaningless.

SJB · « **Reply #10 on:** February 19, 2010, 09:11:23 AM »

My "arbitrary limits" and "preconceived notions" come from sound Catholic Theology.

Caminus · « **Reply #11 on:** February 19, 2010, 09:16:12 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

We are NOT talking about setting "arbitrary limits" based on our "preconceived notions". Just read any theologian regarding the Church's disciplinary infallibility; they all regard it as at least "theologically certain" and others proximate to faith. That takes the cake. Now the Church's disciplinary infallibility is something we made up arbitrarily. See, it's this kind of harmful thinking which comes from the SSPX dogmatic position to which I object.

If the Church can promulgate a "bastard" rite of Mass, then the Church's note of holiness and Her infallibility become utterly meaningless.

First of all, it is one thing to affirm there is such a thing as "disciplinary infallibility" it is another to define it and even yet another to point to concrete facts which would be included under this concept. Is this infallibility "negative" or "positive"? Does it descend into particulars or is it a "general" inerrancy? Would the same qualifications hold here as in the infallible ordinary magisterium where time and repetitition are necessary conditions? You don't address any of these things, thus you are not being careful. You are begging the question and assuming things yet to be proven.

Second of all, the "harmful nature" of the NOM needs to be precisely defined and determined. Is there anything positively harmful or is it rather a privation? Is it found in the changing of prayers inspired by a different orientation? Is it found in its principles? Refer not to what we see today, but the original rite actually promulgated. You must keep all these things in mind if you wish to speak about these things in any meaningful way, not reliant upon sloppy or merely convenient thinking.

Also, the term "bastard" right simply means that it has no lineage with the traditional rites of the Church. They created it from scratch. I'm sure you would concede that at very least, supreme authority can do this in the abstract, prescinding from the question of its goodness.

There is way to much assuming going on here and the throwing around of terms that are not precisely defined.

Caminus · « **Reply #12 on:** February 19, 2010, 09:17:50 AM »

Quote from: SJB

My "arbitrary limits" and "preconceived notions" come from sound Catholic Theology.

You confound principles with concrete application. That's why you think you've achieved "moral certainty."

SJB · « **Reply #13 on:** February 19, 2010, 09:22:06 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: SJB
My "arbitrary limits" and "preconceived notions" come from sound Catholic Theology.

You confound principles with concrete application. That's why you think you've achieved "moral certainty."

Yes, of course. We can know the principles, but we cannot apply them to any concrete situation. Is that what you're saying?

Caminus · « **Reply #14 on:** February 19, 2010, 09:25:51 AM »

Not to mention the very pertinent fact that the NOM was not "promulgated" in any juridically meaningful way. It was never legally binding, nor did it abrogate the old rite. It was just "put out there" for consumption. Hardly qualifying for the grand concepts with which you wish to apply to it.

And that's another thing. Why do you arbitrarily depose a pope and choose rather to say it is bad? If he was the pope, then, according to your own principles or rather opinions, one must of necessity think it was good. You're letting the facts determine the offices and not the other way around. You're own understanding of "disciplinary infallibility" should in reality force you to conclude that the NOM and all the reforms are good and praiseworthy.