Neil Obstat
Reputation: 3269
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 3,829
|
| PereJoseph said: |
Obviously the pastors were not vested with inerrancy if they were not united to a true Pope but were united to a heretic, since the inerrancy proceeds from the guarantee of infallibility promised to Blessed Peter. |
Do you understand what you're saying?
Hundreds of millions of faithful, all over the world, who were vested with
inerrancy before Vatican II, suddenly found their inerrancy switched off
like a light bulb the moment your "invalid pope" took office? And I suppose
their inerrancy will suddenly be switched on like a light bulb the moment a
true pope takes his seat in the Chair of Peter, right?
| Quote: | | I would like you to consider, at this point in the discussion, that you are now arguing against a Papal Bull |
You keep saying that. It must be your comfort zone.
It sounds to me like a Protestant who keeps saying, "Where do you find that
in Scripture?" They say that because they can't think.
Is that what's going on with you, too? I have given the steps that you
don't like to see, because you see where they lead, and so you take a left
turn 6 blocks ahead, like a Jehova's Witness does.
| Quote: | | and the consensus of the theologians of the Church, neither of which a lay Catholic is at liberty to dispute on these questions. |
I find it fascinating that all your theologians are no longer alive.
Can't you find even one who can answer questions?
Protestants say it has to be in the Bible or they don't have to believe it,
and you say it has to be in a dusty volume on the shelf written by a
dead theologian or you don't have to believe it.
See any similarity?? Hmm??
| Quote: | | Apparently you are doing this because you cannot bring yourself to accept the conclusion that none of the Conciliar popes -- John XXIII onwards -- are true Pontiffs. |
On the contrary, apparently you cannot bring yourself to accept
the conclusion that they are true pontiffs. Touche!
I don't hold that against you, because maybe you're right, but neither you nor
I nor anyone else short of a council is qualified to answer that, and where is
your council going to come from if all the bishops and all the priests have
invalid orders because the rites were changed?
Sorry, jumping topic there.
How Protestant of me! HAHAHAHA
| Quote: | | But do you at least see the absurdity of holding up some standard of belief besides the words of the Popes and of approved theologians ? |
Since our predicament is unprecedented, there isn't going to be any pope
who has pronounced on it, until we get a good one in the future! Won't that
be a happy day for every one of us??? YAAAAAY!
In the meantime, where are you going to get any new "approved theologians"
when you don't have any pope, and you can't elect one without any cardinals,
and you can't get any cardinals because you don't have any pope?
Do you enjoy being stuck like this?
| Quote: | | Quote: | And the pope is clothed with infallibility even if he doesn't want to be?
Hmmmmmmmm.... |
The Pope is infallible whenever he gives an answer to an inquiry into what the Faith of the Church is or else makes a decision that pertains to public revelation that cannot be appealed by anybody. The theologians of the Church and the Roman Pontiff determine which decrees bear the necessary notes to be considered decisive or definitive, etc. -- not the laity.
|
Every instance I can find (and that you can find as well, because you have
not produced one that isn't) of papal infallibility is SEALED with a condemnation
of error, or an anathema.
Every Single One.
Every Single One.
Every Single One.
(There are 3 Kyries in the Mass so it seemed like a good idea.)
|
|
| Posted Jun 17, 2012, 6:48 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
SJB
Reputation: 904
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 3,910
|
| Neil Obstat said: | | SJB said: | | Neil obstat said: | The Holy Ghost governs the Church, and protects the Church against error so long as the reigning pontiff INTENDS to invoke the protection of the Holy Ghost. (This equally applies to definition of dogma, because the thing that makes the definition infallible is the ANATHEMA at the end, for without that, it is not infallible and it is not ex cathedra. ) In ages past, it was practically a foregone conclusion that this great power was delicately handled by the Pope, not abused, and invoked when necessary. It was quite easy, and it still is in fact easy, for the Pope to invoke the protection of the Holy Ghost, for he does not need to use ex cathedra definition to do so. How does he do it without that?
The Pope invokes the protection of the Holy Ghost, and the Church is thereby governed by the Spirit of God, whenever the Pope identifies error regarding faith or morals, and condemns it, with the intention of invoking the protection of the Holy Ghost, which is the intention of binding the faithful. |
This is just flat wrong. See Scheeben or the relatio of Bp. Gasser, realtor of he faith at Vatican I. |
See Scheeben? I read what you posted, is that what you mean? I found nothing
there. Maybe you can give one sentence that is clearly what you're talking about?
Have you quoted what Bp. Gasser had to offer on this point? Where is it?
It's not "flat wrong," just because you are not offering any specific proof.
Where does Scheeben or Bp. Gasser say that the pope does not have to
intend to invoke infallibility and he can still be infallible? Where do they say
that every time a pope in history has pronounced heresy, he has therefore
ceased to be pope?
Show me the place. I'm waiting.
Show me only one, single example of infallible definition without any anathema.
Don't say "there are plenty." Just provide one.
Provide one.
| Quote: | | Neil obstat said: | What I'm saying is this, and it's simply my opinion, BTW:
Our problem started literally in 1962 when John XXIII decided to no longer practice the infallible charisma of condemnation of error. That was it.
And there has been not a single instance of papal condemnation of error since. |
Because you are wrong in the above, you make this false conclusion. |
It's not false.
You're proceeding on a false basis, just like the Aunt Helen video does.
It's a house of cards.
There is much more to this, which I haven't even started on yet. But you can't get
past square one. You'll have conniption fits over square 18.
|
Denzinger 2225-2238. Papal encyclical Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI. The pope teaches infallibly.
I'm really trying to understand your position, Neil, and I believe you are confusing a pope not defining, not teaching, with a pope defining or teaching erroneously. The former is possible, the latter is not. The very fact that you are certain the past 5 claimants have taught erroneously is why you propose that they have never "invoked" infallibility, along with your opinion that infallibility is not really an assistance of the Holy Ghost, but something the Pope just decides he wants to do. In other words, a pope who decides to not invoke infallibility can lead the Church into error in faith and morals. That is absolutely wrong and heretical.
|
.........................
It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil for thus we should speedily become unreal; but we must grow to something higher, and something truer, than a quickness in detecting evil. - Fr. Faber
|
| Posted Jun 17, 2012, 1:28 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Neil Obstat
Reputation: 3269
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 3,829
|
| SJB said: |
Denzinger 2225-2238. Papal encyclical Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI. The pope teaches infallibly. |
Call me dense if you like, I cannot know what you are referring to here if you
don't post the text.
Furthermore, it would seem this, above, is a reply to my request for "one,
single example of infallible definition without any anathema," above.
Is it? Because if it is, I don't recognize your answer as an example that qualifies.
Casti Cannubii was not a dogmatic definition, for example. Are you claiming
that Denz. 2225-2238 (whatever that says?) would list it as such?
| Quote: | | I'm really trying to understand your position, Neil, and I believe you are confusing a pope not defining, not teaching, with a pope defining or teaching erroneously. The former is possible, the latter is not. |
Wait. Are you saying that it is impossible for a pope to teach error?
Or, are you saying that if a pope teaches error he thereby loses his office?
| Quote: | | The very fact that you are certain the past 5 claimants have taught erroneously is why you propose that they have never "invoked" infallibility, along with your opinion that infallibility is not really an assistance of the Holy Ghost, but something the Pope just decides he wants to do. |
If I said something that made you think I mean that infallibility is not really an
assistance of the Holy Ghost, I would like to know what that was. Perhaps
you are presuming that I meant to confuse cause and effect or something like
that. It is a Modernist error to confuse cause and effect and/or to misunderstand
the relationship thereof, so I can see how you might have supposed that I do that.
I hope I don't, but I'm not perfect. Is there something I said that indicated that
I have done so?
| Quote: | In other words, a pope who decides to not invoke infallibility can lead the Church into error in faith and morals. That is absolutely wrong and heretical.
|
Whether or not the pope intends to lead the Church into error is a separate
issue from whether his actions or words have that effect because of the
influence of the Evil One that has been allowed power or effect by the
negligence or deeds of the pope who no longer "stands in the way" of
the Evil One (Cf. II Thes. ii. 7).
|
|
| Posted Jun 17, 2012, 3:53 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
|
|
