Still Running Off at the Keyboard

INFALLIBILITY AND A 180 REVERSE

In the Catholic Church the infallibility dogma arrived with the nineteenth ecumenical council, Vatican Council I, held in 1869, five years after the promulgation of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. At the time it was called, opponents of the dogma of infallibility claimed that the Council was intended specifically for the purpose of proclaiming that dogma. Secret societies were also a topic proposed for Council consideration according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, linking via the Council infallibility with rising occultism.

The Syllabus was promulgated by Pius IX two days before he proposed calling the council. A segment of that Syllabus describes the following errors:

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.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

That dogmatic proclamation is available for anyone to read on the web. Another document, this time in the Vatican website, is the text of the message Benedict delivered for the World Day of Peace on January 1, 2007. It contains the following statements:

- Similarly, the affirmation of the right to religious freedom places the human being in a relationship with a transcendent principle which withdraws him from human caprice. The right to life and to the free expression of personal faith in God is not subject to the power of man. Peace requires the establishment of a clear boundary between what is at man's disposal and what is not: in this way unacceptable intrusions into the patrimony of specifically human values will be avoided.

- Equally unacceptable are conceptions of God that would encourage intolerance and recourse to violence against others. This is a point which must be clearly reaffirmed: war in God's name is never acceptable! When a certain notion of God is at the origin of criminal acts, it is a sign that that notion has already become an ideology.

- Speaking of Christians in particular, I must point out with pain that not only are they at times prevented from doing so; in some States they are actually persecuted, and even recently tragic cases of ferocious violence have been recorded. There are regimes that impose a single religion upon everyone, while secular regimes often lead not so much to violent persecution as to systematic cultural denigration of religious beliefs. In both instances, a fundamental human right is not being respected, with serious repercussions for peaceful coexistence. This can only promote a mentality and culture that is not conducive to peace.

The statements just made by Benddict XVI appear to be in direct opposition to the dogmatic papal proclamation of Pius IX. Yet no explanation has been given, no justification made, for the 180 reversal.

Pius IX claimed that only Catholicism had rights. He did so speaking from a Christian Europe. He did so surrounded by the faith. He made his statement from the ground of Catholic belief in the absolute truth of the Catholic faith. He rejected the notion of religious freedom, and that rejection was consistent with the direction the Church had taken as Europe developed. Perhaps it can be argued that he did so in reaction to the overthrow of the papal states in Italy.

Now comes Benedict who advocates religious freedom. He rightly laments the instances where Christians are persecuted for their faith, but in doing so affirms the validity of all religions in opposition to a prior infallible papal encyclical.

Benedict believes that the state must not interfere with the free exercise of any and all religion. No reconciliation with the previous dogmatic statement that this is an error is attempted. The pope has simply taught a reversal of the dogma promulgated infallibly under the Syllabus of Errors, and taught it unapologetically, turning our doctrine into a house of cards in the process.

Apart from the consideration that what Benedict said would appear to stem from current world thinking, particularly of the globalists, and may in fact be the only thinking that will permit mankind to avoid nuclear holocaust, what is one to conclude from this at the level of dogma?

- Do we have a case of pope opposing pope? Can we have such a phenomenon and still maintain the consistency of our beliefs?

- Can a later pope trump the promulgations of a former pope?

- Does this example tell us that despite his words to the contrary, Benedict believes dogma is now intended to be related to contemporary thinking when it is inconvenient to hold fast to what has gone before?

None of these conclusions will land one squarely in the Catholic camp, yet they seem logically drawn from Bendict's words. This is especially troubling because we are in the midst of a scandal that has involved lying and cover-up, and because we have the words of Pope Paul VI that the "smoke" has seeped in. We have little choice other than to take the words of the pope on faith, and little reason to do so when considering that our leaders have not played fairly and honestly with us.

If one dogma is up for grabs, then why should we conclude all of the rest are sacred and beyond revision? If a pope can do a 180 and be respected on the matter of other religions, on what else can he do a 180 and still remain in good standing as we view him? Is there anything he cannot reverse without incurring the charge of teaching heresy, or are we so indifferent to prior teachings that we can embrace current teaching without raising questions and expecting our questions to be answered? The SSPX have raised questions about this consistently and repeatedly and gotten no answers.

The matter of whether the current teaching of Benedict makes logical sense or not given the world scene is a separate issue from the reversal itself. While I tend to see the matter of other religions largely as Benedict sees it, I still need some acceptable justification for doing so if the reversal is not going to knock the foundation out from under my trust in the teaching of popes down through the centuries and cast a shadow of doubt over the entire body of doctrine. One does not say black is white without some really convincing argument for doing so. None is being provided.