Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on October 23, 2017, 01:04:52 AM
-
Can someone please explain it to me?
After all of these years, I have yet to fully understand what the Magisterium is and how it functions?
Is the Magisterium a group of people or a group of Church docuмents?
Also, What does the Magisterium have to do with the crisis in the Church and the N.O. Mass?
-
http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/magisterium.htm
-
While not exactly "pure as the driven snow", you could start here (https://www.bing.com/search?q=site%3Anewadvent.org+magisterium&go=Search&qs=ds&form=QBRE); hopefully, the given site is at generally tolerable enough to minimize peripheral gripes and commentary.
DZ P
Please ditch this entire section Matthew, pretty please...
-
Can someone please explain it to me?
After all of these years, I have yet to fully understand what the Magisterium is and how it functions?
Is the Magisterium a group of people or a group of Church docuмents?
Also, What does the Magisterium have to do with the crisis in the Church and the N.O. Mass?
You are to be commended for asking this question. You are not alone in your confusion which imo, is everywhere and is rooted in certain false teachings of certain "well respected" 19th/20th century theologians.
A few minutes ago I made this list for another poster, perhaps you're him? It is by no means complete, just a quick reference list is all. At any rate, I hope it helps.
The Church is Christ’s Mystical Body, is Christ.
The Pope is Christ’s Vicar on earth, the Church’s visible Head, Her spokesman and the successor of St. Peter.
The Hierarchy is the Pope and Bishops, we often include Cardinals and priests.
The Deposit of Faith is all revealed truths given by Christ and the Holy Ghost to His Church through the Apostles. These truths exist in written word, Scripture and unwritten traditions.
The Magisterium is the Church authoritatively teaching all those truths contained in the Deposit of Faith.
Ordinary Magisterium is the Church teaching in her usual, day to day activities.
Universal Magisterium is infallible, binding teachings that the Church has taught always and everywhere since the time of the Apostles.
Extraordinary Magisterium or Solemn Magisterium is the Church teaching in an unusual manner, such as through a Council or an ex cathedra statement made by the pope.
Ex Cathedra is the pope solemnly defining a doctrine or doctrines concerning faith or morals, binding on the whole Church. This is infallible teaching, being protected by the Holy Ghost, is divinely guaranteed to be without the possibility of error.
Infallibility is freedom from error in teaching the Universal Church in matters of faith or morals, as defined by the First Vatican Council (see “infallible teachings” below).
Infallible teachings are all those teachings contained in the Deposit of Faith, which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary Magisterium and Universal Magisterium.
Indefectibility is the fact that the Church in its faith and morals and its infallible interpretation will remain unchangeable until the end of time. It is that attribute of the Church by which it will remain until the end of time essentially the same as it was established by Christ.
Impeccability is the impossibility of sinning.
-
Conceptually, it's very easy. "Magisterium" means teaching office. Theologians distinguish (primarily) between two types:
Ordinary-- the usual, day-to-day teaching of all the bishops in the world United with the pope on faith or morals (catechisms, sermons, letters, and so on).
Extraordinary/solemn: rarely used, but includes the docuмents approved at ecuмenical councils, papal definitions, and the like.
However, neither the ordinary nor extraordinary magisterium are exercised during a period of interregnum, which is what we've been enduring for the last 50 years or so. So in practice for contemporary Catholics, it can be very challenging to understand the magisterium-- we've not lived with it.
-
However, neither the ordinary nor extraordinary magisterium are exercised during a period of interregnum, which is what we've been enduring for the last 50 years or so. So in practice for contemporary Catholics, it can be very challenging to understand the magisterium-- we've not lived with it.
Which is to say the Church ceases to teach between the death/abdication of the previous pope and the election of the new pope. Amazing.
-
Which is to say the Church ceases to teach between the death/abdication of the previous pope and the election of the new pope. Amazing.
.
Properly speaking, both types of magisterium are infallible, but in each case their infallibility rests with the pope. No Pope, no infallibility.
.
Bishops still teach during such periods, of course. But they enjoy no infallibility, even in consensus, because the source of ordinary infallibility is removed.
.
So yes, as you can see, the Church is severely wounded without a Pope. Ergo the urgency with which she has always elected a new one, even from her earliest days.
-
.
Properly speaking, both types of magisterium are infallible, but in each case their infallibility rests with the pope. No Pope, no infallibility.
.
Bishops still teach during such periods, of course. But they enjoy no infallibility, even in consensus, because the source of ordinary infallibility is removed.
.
So yes, as you can see, the Church is severely wounded without a Pope. Ergo the urgency with which she has always elected a new one, even from her earliest days.
.
This was interesting to read, and well done by Mithrandylan and Stubborn.
.
I would like to add for newcomers to the concept that the word Magisterium is a Latin word, literally meaning the Teaching Office of the Church. (As already mentioned.)
.
In Latin, a teaching office is neither male nor female; it has no gender. In Latin a person is either male or female, and cannot be neuter. That's the way Latin is. If the word were male, it would be "Magisterio" and if female, "Magisteria" or "Magisteriae." Since Magisterium is neither male nor female, it cannot apply to a person. Consequently it makes more sense to see that Magisterium cannot refer to one man or a group of men who hold office in the Church. Since Vat.II it has become commonplace for the word to be misunderstood in this way and it would seem there has been a deliberate effort of Modernists to inject a new meaning into the word. The use of the phrase "living Magisterium" is another aspect of this deception, by which the living Magisterium can change from day to day or over time, depending on the whims of the current occupants of the authoritative office in question.
.
It helps to know that in Latin there are nouns that can be either male or female in specific cases, and when that happens the male gender is used, never the female, even though in a specific case the male gender noun could be applying to a female person. This concept is entirely lost on modern day feminism activists who have rebelled against this principle, accusing our ancestors of having a sexist agenda opposed to the good of women (literally, the female sex). Therefore when traditional literature says "mankind" or "God gave something to man," it applies equally to men and women and children.
.
Notice we do have a universal word for boys and girls (children), and we have "people" for males and females of all ages. But we would have to say "adults" for men and women without distinction. There is something poetic lost in the translation when "man" is replaced with "a person," and "mankind" is replaced with "people."
.
Then, "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" would become, "One small step for a person, one giant leap for people." Kind of falls flat, no?
.
It helps to know that in Latin, there are three genders for nouns. That means that words have different ending letters that reflect which gender applies: male, female or neuter. In this case the letters "-ium" are the key indicators of the gender that applies, because Latin nouns ending in "-ium" are neuter gender, which is necessarily neither male nor female. Other languages, even Romance languages (based on Latin derivatives) apply gender to all nouns, for example Spanish, in which is found female tables (la mesa), chairs (la silla), houses (la casa) and geographical features (la ciudad); while male political offices (el presidente), tools (los hermientos), weapons (el navajo), and some mechanical components (el alambre). There are entities in Spanish that can be either male OR female, such as weather patterns (El Nino, or La Nina).
.
-
Doesn't anyone just look things up and study anymore?
-
Doesn't anyone just look things up and study anymore?
.
There are laymen running websites who think it's their "vocation" (because of Vatican II) and they believe that the magisterium is a group of men in charge of telling people what to believe -- which can change from day to day. Why study when you already know the answer? If you try to explain to these guys what they're missing they get upset and don't believe what you tell them.
.
-
This article at the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is duly imprimatured by the then living Magisterium, explains what the "living magisterium" is.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
-
.
There are laymen running websites who think it's their "vocation" (because of Vatican II) and they believe that the magisterium is a group of men in charge of telling people what to believe -- which can change from day to day. Why study when you already know the answer? If you try to explain to these guys what they're missing they get upset and don't believe what you tell them.
.
Catholic Answers with their proof texts comes to mind.
-
Since Vat.II it has become commonplace for the word to be misunderstood in this way and it would seem there has been a deliberate effort of Modernists to inject a new meaning into the word. The use of the phrase "living Magisterium" is another aspect of this deception, by which the living Magisterium can change from day to day or over time, depending on the whims of the current occupants of the authoritative office in question.
.
While I appreciate that the anonymous user found my post helpful, let me say that "the living magisterium" is a completely traditional and Catholic notion. Like most things, the Novus Ordo has hijacked the term in the name of aggiornomento but we must be careful, in discerning, not to abandon Catholic principles in our efforts to throw out the Novus Ordo ones.
.
The magisterium is, of its nature, living. It is composed (in its ordinary form) of all the bishops throughout the world teaching in union with the pope: present tense. This is the proximate rule of faith, i.e., the usual and most accessible way for Catholics everywhere to learn what the Catholic faith is and isn't. It is infallible, and it is living in the truest sense. In its extraordinary form (whether at ecuмenical council or in papal definitions) it is living also. It is not just "timeless" but always contemporaneous.
.
Naturally, in these times, it can be very difficult to see how this is the case. Without a pope, and with so many bishops having disappeared into heresy while still continuing to appear to hold their offices, Catholics are tempted to think that the Catholic faith is something that is and has always consisted in just the consensus of the fathers or in unanimous teachings up to a certain point. But this simply isn't the case. The Church cannot err for an instant, which is why St. Vincent Lerins (of the Vincentian Canon) says that it suffices, to prove that something is Church teaching, to show that it is being universally taught or believed now. If such a consensus cannot be found contemporaneously, then "going back" to see if it was ever taught or believed everywhere at some other point in time can go to show that the teaching is Catholic teaching. But a contemporaneous consensus completely suffices, because the magisterium is living.
-
Yes, excellent post.
I was just reading one of my favorite encyclicals, Satis Cognitum by Pope Leo XIII, and the phrase "living magisterium" is right there - no question a traditional and essential concept, and considered in relation to indefectibility, provides a grounding which helps understand and comes to terms with this crisis.
Satis Cognitum:
Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium - [read: Teachings] which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. "Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee". In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed...
The "living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium" Pope Leo XIII speaks of, is teachings. What it is not, is "all the bishops throughout the world teaching in union with the pope" past, present or future tense. Magisterium is not people, it's teachings.
-
The Magisterium is the Church's teaching office. It doesn't exist without "people." Mainly, the world's bishops and the pope.
-
The Magisterium is the Church's teaching office. It doesn't exist without "people." Mainly, the world's bishops and the pope.
That is correct, it is the teaching office of the Church, but pope, bishops or priests etc. are not the magisterium.
Like the office pope has his office, that of the papacy, Magisterium has it's office, that of teaching. This is why Pope Leo XIII says: "If it (the magisterium, the teachings) could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man."
-
You over-distinguish.
An office without an occupant is useless. A teaching body without teachers is an abuse in terms. The actual teachings which belong to the magisterium would be gnostic if they were never proposed by those teachers for belief.
-
You over-distinguish.
An office without an occupant is useless. A teaching body without teachers is an abuse in terms. The actual teachings which belong to the magisterium would be gnostic if they were never proposed by those teachers for belief.
.
Sorry-- this was me.
.
Why is this in the anonymous subforum??
-
That is correct, it is the teaching office of the Church, but pope, bishops or priests etc. are not the magisterium.
Like the office pope has his office, that of the papacy, Magisterium has it's office, that of teaching. This is why Pope Leo XIII says: "If it (the magisterium, the teachings) could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man."
Dahh! Can't edit in this forum.
This is why the Magisterium is infallible - always and everywhere. Because, as Pope Leo XIII states, it, the Magisterium came from Christ, He instituted it. The Magisterium was not ordained, consecrated, elected or appointed. The Magisterium is teachings, not people.
-
Dahh! Can't edit in this forum.
This is why the Magisterium is infallible - always and everywhere. Because, as Pope Leo XIII states, it, the Magisterium came from Christ, He instituted it. The Magisterium was not ordained, consecrated, elected or appointed. The Magisterium is teachings, not people.
.
The deposit of faith is what Christ handed to the magisterium.
.
The magisterium tells us what is and isn't in the deposit of faith. The magisterium is "people." It is the teaching office of the Church, which is composed of all legitimate pastors.
-
.
The deposit of faith is what Christ handed to the magisterium.
.
The magisterium tells us what is and isn't in the deposit of faith. The magisterium is "people." It is the teaching office of the Church, which is composed of all legitimate pastors.
Not so, it is not people - read what Pope Leo said - I posted it. He Instituted the Magisterium. "Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium."
The Magisterium was not ordained, consecrated, elected or appointed, IT was instituted by Christ. The magisterium is teachings - not the hierarchy, not the pope and not even people.
People are confused on this because being taught error, they think the magisterium being infallible, which it is, is the pope, or the bishops in union with the pope, or all the bishops dispersed throughout the world teaching the same wrong thing. It is nothing of the sort.
-
The magisterium as all the bishops and pope (living, authoritative, and permanently instituted [c.f. Vatican I]) is exactly what he's talking about, and you can pick up any theology manual at random and see the same thing.
-
The magisterium as all the bishops and pope (living, authoritative, and permanently instituted [c.f. Vatican I]) is exactly what he's talking about, and you can pick up any theology manual at random and see the same thing.
Stay away from theology manuals and comprehend what the pope wrote - the Magisterium is instituted by Christ, as such it is living, authoritative and permanently infallible. It is NOT bishops and popes. They were not instituted by Christ, they are not permanently infallible, they are people. Only Christ (and Our Lady) were impeccable - why do I need to repeat something so basic?
Popes and bishops are human, they are elected, consecrated and/or appointed, the Magisterium is infallible teachings, are instituted in the Church by Christ.
-
The magisterium is infallible not because it is impersonal, but because Christ guaranteed that when certain people teach under certain conditions, they are protected from teaching error.
.
The view proposed by stubborn is not only theologically untenable, it is philosophically untenable. The Catholic faith in its entirety is a series of propositions. That we are aware that any of them even exist, never mind whether or not any of them are even true, is owed to the fact that Christ's institution of the apostolic college and the Petrine office (all living, authoratative, and permanent) propose them to us for belief. But the propositions themselves are not living. Only things with a soul live. To say that a teaching lives is incoherent. Teachers live, not teachings.
.
-
The magisterium is infallible not because it is impersonal, but because Christ guaranteed that when certain people teach under certain conditions, they are protected from teaching error.
You offer only more confusion, needlessly.
The Magisterium is infallible because it was instituted by Christ - that is what pope Leo correctly and literally said, the theology manuals you read should say that exact same thing or you're reading the wrong ones. The magisterium is guaranteed free from error because Christ instituted it. It's not complicated Mith - just read the blurb from pope Leo I posted.
Christ guaranteed ONLY the pope infallibility under certain conditions - read the decrees of the First Vatican Council. No one but the pope is guaranteed protection from the possibility of error - and then ONLY when teaching certain doctrines under certain conditions.
The view proposed by stubborn is not only theologically untenable, it is philosophically untenable. The Catholic faith in its entirety is a series of propositions. That we are aware that any of them even exist, never mind whether or not any of them are even true, is owed to the fact that Christ's institution of the apostolic college and the Petrine office (all living, authoratative, and permanent) propose them to us for belief. But the propositions themselves are not living. Only things with a soul live. To say that a teaching lives is incoherent. Teachers live, not teachings.
What view of mine? I am referencing Pope Leo XIII, literally. That the teaching, the magisterium, are living teachings means it is always tenable, always pertinent, always true, always there to enlighten. That which is permanent can only be living.
From the First Vatican Council, here's a new one for you - Divine Magisterium = Christ teachings:
Everybody knows that those heresies, condemned by the fathers of Trent, which rejected the divine magisterium of the church and allowed religious questions to be a matter for the judgment of each individual, have gradually collapsed into a multiplicity of sects, either at variance or in agreement with one another; and by this means a good many people have had all faith in Christ destroyed.
Also
Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary [magisterium] and universal magisterium.
-
:facepalm:
-
I agree.
How you turn something so clear into something so complicated is definitely :facepalm:
-
I assume this poster is talking about stubborn.
No sede, I posted it but forgot to click the box.
-
So, yes then.
-
Look at the Scriptural bases for the Magisterium, and read this passage of Satis Cognitum:
But the magisterium doesn't reside in persons. But then he says it does in the pope "under certain conditions." Go figure.
For Satis Cognitum being one of your favorite encyclicals I think you said, you sure don't even understand what you're reading.
Stubborn's theology on the magisterium is indeed a mess.
Compared to the sede theology it sure is. But it is Catholic, just basic Catholic theology, only a mess to sede's.
-
"Catholic" (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSqnTzeaRdHmuKWBWh86aCokdcml7zoo_2jQtVrTiaWceJNI2KUBQrC7Ew)
DZP
-
It's this where I say, "yo mama"?
The check box to reveal the poster should be moved to a more prominent place.
. Adjacent to the SUBMIT button would be a great location.
. The "yo mama"? contribution, is this from DZ Please?
-
It was me. LOL
Who is "me"? Again it was Anonymous as in "We are Anonymous. We do not forget. We do not forgive. Expect us."
-
HEY! ;)
There should be an option to make things like the "Not Anonymous" box "sticky", as was observed elsewhere via... gator if memory serves.
Crap, I HATE the anonymous section; it should be put down like "Old Yeller".
-
It was me. LOL
My priest always responds over the phone, "It is me."
For a moment, I wondered if he had found my favorite posting site.
-
Crap, I HATE the anonymous section; it should be put down like "Old Yeller".
Hey.
If there were the rare occasion when you truly thought you were posting anonymously, and you used some choice words that you might regret, then you would not be able to hide the real you nor would you be able to modify that message.
DOUBLE WHAMMY.
-
My priest always responds over the phone, "It is me."
For a moment, I wondered if he had found my favorite posting site.
Deja vu.
-
KURRRRRRRRRRAP!
:cussing:
:-X
Must be DZ again.
-
I fear that In all the confusion Stubborn might start having an argument (or should I say a contradiction) with himself. This could lead to an uncontrolled reaction and meltdown.
You cried when Old Yeller died didn't you?
-
I fear that In all the confusion Stubborn might start...
Start? I don't think he's ever gonna stop.
... having an argument (or should I say a contradiction) with himself. This could lead to an uncontrolled reaction and meltdown.
See "Start?" prev.
You cried when Old Yeller died didn't you?
https://youtu.be/LhmCHe0B5gw
-
Once started on a topic, Stubborn persists and will never stop. Most likely he is also sleep deprived.
-
Once started on a topic, Stubborn persists and will never stop. Most likely he is also sleep deprived.
Not true, most often I stop after I think those fence sitters reading these threads, who are confused but are seeking the truth, garner enough info to make them think correctly.
The only reason I engage sedevacantists(ism) at all is for the benefit of those fence sitters lurking about seeking the truth. Otherwise the sedes would lead them to believe that the made made doctrine of sedevacantism is a teaching of the Church, or is in any way supported or tolerated by the Church.
These words are as true today as they were 100 years ago:
"It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation." - Fr. Feeney
-
Any fence sitter who reads you and takes you seriously will get impaled.
-
The main thing is that they don't blind themselves and cut themselves off from heaven for no reason at all in the process. That's what it's all about, that's all that really matters.
-
In Crayola, a pope leads the Church, the Church leads the faithful, the husband leads "the domestic Church."
Hierarchic, militant, perfectly societal, most rightly ordered, by Wisdom Himself.
Someone like Stubborn's "wife", to follow principle, should say he's her husband, then do as she likes; if that happens to have some correlation to his will, to his determination, then "Cool beans."
If not, then she can just inform him, "I love you, but I'm being God's good servant till you get with His (as she has determined and so willed) program, then I'll give you back your pants; they're a little too baggy for me anyway. That skirt does make your eyes pop though."
Inversion, subversion, wrong order, unreason.
In a word, "Jєω".
-
In Crayola, a pope leads the Church, ......
I understand that it is an absolute impossibility for sede's to be subject to the pope. I think by now we all see how it all works - Sede's must first claim there is no pope, once they do that, they have no pope to be subject to, which, they say, releases or divorces them from the dogma which states we must be subject to the pope as a requirement for heaven.
We all see how that works for the sede's. It does not work for the rest of the Catholics, but it works for the sede's - well, at least they have fooled themselves into believing as much.
Speaking of Jєωs - It would be wise to always remember that waiting for your idea of a "true" pope, whatever that might be, is slightly similar to Jєωs waiting for a Messiah that came 2000 years ago.
-
The Magisterium or Teaching Authority of the Church
by Fr. William G. Most
By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : "He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects you rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me" (Luke 10. 16). Now of course the promise of Christ cannot fail: hence when the Church presents some doctrine as definitive or final, it comes under this protection, it cannot be in error; in other words, it is infallible. This is true even if the Church does not use the solemn ceremony of definition. The day to day teaching of the Church throughout the world, when the Bishops are in union with each other and with the Pope, and present something as definitive, this is infallible. (Vatican II, Lumen gentium # 25). It was precisely by the use of that authority that Vatican I was able to define that the Pope alone, when speaking as such and making things definitive, is also infallible. Of course this infallibility covers also teaching on what morality requires, for that is needed for salvation.
A "theologian" who would claim he needs to be able to ignore the Magisterium in order to find the truth is strangely perverse: the teaching of the Magisterium is the prime, God-given means of finding the truth. Nor could he claim academic freedom lets him contradict the Church. In any field of knowledge, academic freedom belongs only to a properly qualified professor teaching in his own field. But one is not properly qualified if he does not use the correct method of working in his field, e.g., a science professor who would want to go back to medieval methods would be laughed off campus, not protected. Now in Catholic theology , the correct method is to study the sources of revelation, but then give the final word to the Church. He who does not follow that method is not a qualified Catholic theologian. Vatican II taught (Dei Verbum # 10): "The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."
https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura4.htm
The above is from yet another one of the "well respected" 20th century theologians teaching error, which seems to agree with Mith's ideas - Fr. Most at least tips us off to the errors by referencing that such teachings are Vatican 2's (Lumen gentium and Dei Verbum). Hope Mith is paying attention here.
-
The above is from yet another one of the "well respected" 20th century theologians teaching error, which seems to agree with Mith's ideas - Fr. Most at least tips us off to the errors by referencing that such teachings are Vatican 2's (Lumen gentium and Dei Verbum). Hope Mith is paying attention here.
-
If you reject everything, even most (no pun intended), of what Vatican II or Fr. Most said you'd be an apostate from the Catholic faith. The same goes for most " 'well-respected' 20th century theologians."
To note simply that something is taught in Vatican II or by " 'well-respected' 20th century theologians" does absolutely nothing to support or oppose the argument; the same argument could be used to attack the Real Presence, the Trinity, etc.
No wonder you choose to remain "Anonymous," making arguments like that.
I don't reject everything or even most if what Fr. Most says - but he does teach the same error as V2, and he taught it before V2, and you falsely say that you believe the error to be truth because Fr. Most and other "well respected" 19th/20th century theologians taught it.
If you REALLY believed these errors to be truth, then you would be part of that truth and be a member inside the conciliar church. As it is, even you do not believe it to be true, but that is only because you have zero faith in the real truth. Yo choose to divorce yourself from the pope hence the dogma, as if that's some type of truth or answer in and of itself. It's really quite insane when you think about it.
-
I don't reject everything or even most if what Fr. Most says - but he does teach the same error as V2, and he taught it before V2, and you falsely say that you believe the error to be truth because Fr. Most and other "well respected" 19th/20th century theologians taught it.
If you REALLY believed these errors to be truth, then you would be part of that truth and be a member inside the conciliar church. As it is, even you do not believe it to be true, but that is only because you have zero faith in the real truth. Yo choose to divorce yourself from the pope hence the dogma, as if that's some type of truth or answer in and of itself. It's really quite insane when you think about it.
-
I reject the conciliar church because I believe the Bride of Christ cannot teach error and heresy to the world, or give it false sacraments, because that is truth. You can verify that not only in the teachings of “ ‘well-respected’ 19th/20th century theologians,” but in teachings of the magisterium itself. For example, Pope Leo XIII:
You're right, the Church, being Christ, cannot teach error, not even a teeny tiny error.
If you really believed indefectibility to be the de fide truth it is, you'd reject these false hierarchs as unCatholic and outside the Church, instead of blasphemously recognizing them as true hierarchs of the Church of Christ dispensing to the world their poison.
I believe in the indefectibility of the Church - you do not. I do reject what they teach, I am not the one who listens to them, you do. You believe the lies you were taught, I don't - not any more.
I know that if it were a teaching of the Church that all the bishops dispersed throughout the world all teaching the same wrong thing is the infallible magisterium, that I would be in their camp, I would be a member of that church - because that would be the teaching of the Church and no matter what my thoughts and opinions in the matter, I would be bound to submit.
But it's not a teaching of the Church, it's the teachings of certain theologians. I spelled out what he magisterium and other things are just for you here (https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/what-exactly-is-the-magisterium/msg574095/#msg574095), read it. The popes and bishops are not the magisterium, they are the hierarchy, dispersed throughout the world, today, all teaching the same wrong thing. Simple.
No wonder you keep hiding in anonymity.
-
You can verify that not only in the teachings of “ ‘well-respected’ 19th/20th century theologians,” but in teachings of the magisterium itself.
.
There's not a single Catholic source who can be used to support Stubborn's view, but even more than that, literally any Catholic source will affirm what the "well-respected 19th/20th century theologians" say. Even in the early Church, like the Vincentian canon.
.
The universal consensus of the theologians is a sure sign of what the Church teaches. Here's what happens if they can err in consensus:
1) all the priests are required to be taught according to these manuals. The Church mandates it.
2) all the manuals teach x related to faith or morals (which, according to Stubborn, is plainly wrong)
3) all the priests believe x wrongly
4) all bishops are drawn from all priests, so eventually all bishops believe wrongly
5) eventually, everyone believes wrongly
6) The faith is lost universally
One might say that someone can believe rightly despite the errors of the manuals. And this is called, simply, Protestantism. That despite what legitimate authority universally teaches, we can still keep the faith! The Church isn't just useless according to this view, it's the single greatest obstacle to Christian learning that exists!
-
.
There's not a single Catholic source who can be used to support Stubborn's view, but even more than that, literally any Catholic source will affirm what the "well-respected 19th/20th century theologians" say. Even in the early Church, like the Vincentian canon.
.
The universal consensus of the theologians is a sure sign of what the Church teaches. Here's what happens if they can err in consensus:
1) all the priests are required to be taught according to these manuals. The Church mandates it.
2) all the manuals teach x related to faith or morals (which, according to Stubborn, is plainly wrong)
3) all the priests believe x wrongly
4) all bishops are drawn from all priests, so eventually all bishops believe wrongly
5) eventually, everyone believes wrongly
6) The faith is lost universally
One might say that someone can believe rightly despite the errors of the manuals. And this is called, simply, Protestantism. That despite what legitimate authority universally teaches, we can still keep the faith! The Church isn't just useless according to this view, it's the single greatest obstacle to Christian learning that exists!
Wrong, "my view" is supported by the decrees of the First Vatican Council - I wholly believe everything that council infallibly taught, you should probably study it. Allow me to demonstrate the error you believe is dogma itself - or that I am wrong and you don't believe the error to be dogma itself.
From Lumen Gentium, which is the same as what Fr. Most along with certain other "well respected" 19/20th theologians teaches: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held."
Correct me if I'm wrong but to you, this quote above basically means it is dogma that whatever the bishops agree and teach on one position regarding faith and morals is infallible (as long as they're in communion with the pope), even when dispersed throughout the world. Is this what you believe is dogma?
-
Oh just stop it.
.
Everything you use to support your view is your own interpretation of some primary docuмent which no one else has ever read the way you read it.
.
That should tell you something.
-
What does it take to see malice and lying for what it is, and to stop making excuses for it?
DZ P
Gotta love that stupid little box...
-
Oh just stop it.
.
Everything you use to support your view is your own interpretation of some primary docuмent which no one else has ever read the way you read it.
.
That should tell you something.
Man o man, you sede's constantly side track and constantly run from the simplest of questions. I keep making clear challenges and the sede's keep side tracking and keep running from them.
"A lot of crazy thinking is corrected by clear challenges! And I do not know any place where man goes wilder than when he starts to think incorrectly in religious territories." - Fr. Feeney
-
Man o man, you sede's constantly side track and constantly run from the simplest of questions. I keep making clear challenges and the sede's keep side tracking and keep running from them.
"A lot of crazy thinking is corrected by clear challenges! And I do not know any place where man goes wilder than when he starts to think incorrectly in religious territories." - Fr. Feeney
How 'bout now?
-
"III. The act of promulgation must be a teaching (magisterium), and not a mere statement; this teaching must witness to its identity with the original Revelation, i.e. it must always show that what is taught is identical with what was revealed; it must be a "teaching with authority" - that is, it must command the submission of the mind, because otherwise the unity and universality of the Faith could not be attained." - Scheeben
-
Magisterium:
"...all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith." - Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter
-
Stubborn translation: Doctrine is what I say it is and not what the Church tells me it is.
-
Stubborn translation: Doctrine is what I say it is and not what the Church tells me it is.
You must be an idiot. Only an idiot would get that from Pope Pius IX and Sheeben
Yep, you're an idiot.
-
You must be an idiot. Only an idiot would get that from Pope Pius IX and Sheeben
Yep, you're an idiot.
That may be true, but it's better than being both an idiot AND a heretic ... like you.
-
That may be true, but it's better than being both an idiot AND a heretic ... like you.
Ahhh, LOL! Your another sede.
Carry on idiot. :cheers:
-
Ahhh, LOL! You're another sede.
Carry on idiot. :cheers:
-
Corrected previous post.
-
Ahhh, LOL! Your another sede.
Carry on idiot. :cheers:
Better a sede than a Protestant.
-
Corrected previous post.
You can't spell correctly and you call ME an idiot.