Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote from: Telesphorus

Dignitatis Humanae is opposed to the First Commandment.

If the legitimate authority of laws comes from God it is not possible to make a principle of the "right" to violate the First Commandment.

This is what I was told by a sedevacantist priest, but they are the only ones who have said this.  You will not hear this from a novus ordo priest.  And, if you ask them about it, they deny it.

So, who is right?

Dignitatis Humanae contradicts the basic principles Pius XII taught in Ci Riesce.

It contradicts Quanta Cura, which is clearly infallible.

I believe it is a mistake to try to merely say that it contradicts the first commandment (I agree that it does), it is better to show that it directly contradicts previous pope's teachings. Then the novus ordo priest will need to explain how this type of contradiction of past papal teaching can possibly exist.

They say that only parts of Quanta Cura are infallible.

Yes, and that part is infallible. Here is Scheeben specifically mentioning Quanta Cura:

III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the docuмents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the docuмent. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical docuмents must be applied. The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—

1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.

2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.

3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.

4. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.

SJB

Have you ever spoken to a novus ordo priest about this?  If so, what did he tell you when you brought up Quanta Cura?

Religious liberty was condemned in an ex cathedra definition by Pope Pius IX, as can be read in Quanta Cura, wherein a clear formula of definition is contained (We by Our Apostolic Authority, etc.)

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

SECT. 34.—Dogmatic Censures.

I. The Vatican Council has spoken of the right of censure belonging to the Church in the following terms: “Moreover, the Church having received, together with the apostolic office of teaching, the command to keep the Deposit of the Faith, hath also the right and the duty of proscribing knowledge falsely so-called, lest any one should be deceived by philosophy or vain deceit. Wherefore all the Faithful are forbidden, not only to defend as legitimate conclusions of science opinions of this kind which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of the Faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are also bound to hold them rather as errors having the deceitful semblance of truth “ (sess. iii., chap. 4). See also Pius IX's brief Gravissimas inter.

II. Dogmatic censures impose most strictly the duty of unreserved assent. In matters of Faith and Morals they afford absolute certainty that the doctrines or propositions censured are to be rejected in the manner required by the particular censure affixed to them. Sometimes the obligation of submitting to the Church's judgment is expressly mentioned ; e.g. in the Bull Unigenitus. “We order all the Faithful not to presume to form opinions about these propositions or to teach or preach them, otherwise than is determined in this our constitution.” In cases of this kind the infallibility of the censures is contained in the infallibility concerning Faith and Morals which belongs to the Teaching Apostolate, because submission to the censure is made a moral duty. No difference is here made between the binding power of lesser censures and that of the highest (heresy). Moreover, these censures bind not only by reason of the obedience due to the Church, but also on account of the certain knowledge which they give us of the falsity or untrustworthiness of the censured doctrines To adhere to these doctrines is a grievous sin because of the strictness of the ecclesiastical prohibition sanctioned by the heaviest penalties, and also because all or nearly all the censures represent the censured act as grievously sinful. The duty to reject a censured doctrine involves the right to assert and duty to admit the contradictory doctrine as sound, nay as the only sound and legitimate doctrine. The censures do not expressly state this right and duty, nevertheless the consideration of the meaning and drift of each particular censure clearly establishes both. In the case of censures which express categorically the Church's certain judgment, such as “Heresy,” “Error,” “False,” “Blasphemous,” “Impious,” and also in cases where moral certainty is expressed, such as “Akin to Heresy,” “Akin to Error,” “Rash,” there can be no question as to this.

Doubt might perhaps arise whether the other censures, such as “Wicked,” “Unsound,” “Unsafe, and mere condemnations without any particular qualification, impose the duty of admitting the falsity of the condemned doctrines as at least morally certain, or whether it is enough to abstain from maintaining them. As a rule, however, we must not be content with the latter.

SJB

Have you ever spoken to a novus ordo priest about this?  If so, what did he tell you when you brought up Quanta Cura?

The last time I spoke with a Novus Ordo priest was concerning Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos. He was very rude and asked me to leave his classroom. I did and never returned.

Someone had posted this on my facebook, and I thought perhaps this dealt with the question of how early the Church was stating punishment for not obeying Catholic laws


"St. Basil the Great (374): “A woman who has deliberately destroyed a fetus must pay the penalty for murder… Those also who give drugs causing abortions are murderers themselves, as well as those who receive the poison which kills the fetus.”

Quote from: Telesphorus

Dignitatis Humanae is opposed to the First Commandment.

If the legitimate authority of laws comes from God it is not possible to make a principle of the "right" to violate the First Commandment.

This is what I was told by a sedevacantist priest, but they are the only ones who have said this.  You will not hear this from a novus ordo priest.  And, if you ask them about it, they deny it.

So, who is right?

my priest is diocesan and though he does not like to, has to say  the NO-and he has said this, so yes, there is a NO priest that would say that-lets not paint all with one brush stroke...

that said, my priest has said publicly, at NO and TLM, that he prefers to say only the TLM...not made friends with that in some groups....

also, just recalled, that Fr. Wolfe and McLucas have made statements to that effect and they are FSSP, which from SV view usually puts them in the NO camp.....

<<<Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Satis Cognitum (5) warned of the necessity to guard the integrity of the faith against those who would differ in any point from the true doctrine of the Church. Even if they admit the whole cycle of doctrine, "by one word, as with a drop of poison" they are able to infect the Apostolic Faith. DH is a perfect example of what Pope Leo warned about.>>>