Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]

Author Topic: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences  (Read 36166 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Freind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 447
  • Reputation: +54/-49
  • Gender: Male
  • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
« Reply #150 on: December 20, 2025, 09:07:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: WorldsAway on December 20, 2025, 08:01:40 AM
    Ecclesiastical law is not infallible, that's my point. If you think the 1917 Code is correct, then the prior practice was incorrect. If the prior practice was correct, than the 1917 Code is incorrect.

     Ecclesiastical burial is to be given to Catechumens who die without baptism. That's the current law. A future pope could abrogate the current law, and enact a new law that would forbid ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized Catechumens..as was done in the past

    Yes, it is infallible. It is "the Church" that does it, and it cannot do anything against morals and faith to the whole Church. This is not "papal infallibility". It is the Church infallibility. St. Thomas says it is a BLASPHEMY to say THE CHURCH does anything harmful or even "useless". You willing to commit blasphemy?

    I wonder whether you even read all I responded with. The examples I gave were all changes, all useful and good. 
    Logged

    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1361
    • Reputation: +895/-127
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #151 on: December 20, 2025, 10:35:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The 1917 Code does not teach faith and morals to the Universal Church, and it does not bind the Universal Church in its entirety. If the 1917 Code is correct, then the prior practice was incorrect.

    Nice trap with "useless", too bad you didn't have the satisfaction of its success :laugh2:

    Now, what is the "usefulness" of the reversal of the prior practice, and the implementation of the current Canon? I don't know. I don't need to know. I didn't make the law, I don't know the reasoning of whoever wrote that Canon. But the law's the law, of course

    Logged
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 447
    • Reputation: +54/-49
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #152 on: December 20, 2025, 10:45:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: WorldsAway on December 20, 2025, 10:35:00 AM
    The 1917 Code does not teach faith and morals to the Universal Church, and it does not bind the Universal Church in its entirety. If the 1917 Code is correct, then the prior practice was incorrect.

    Nice trap with "useless", too bad you didn't have the satisfaction of its success :laugh2:

    Now, what is the "usefulness" of the reversal of the prior practice, and the implementation of the current Canon? I don't know. I don't need to know. I didn't make the law, I don't know the reasoning of whoever wrote that Canon. But the law's the law, of course

    Just like Stubborn, you can't say when "the Church" does some thing. Look what V2 has done to you.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15282
    • Reputation: +6250/-924
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #153 on: December 20, 2025, 11:04:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Freind on December 20, 2025, 09:07:21 AM
    Yes, it is infallible. It is "the Church" that does it, and it cannot do anything against morals and faith to the whole Church. This is not "papal infallibility". It is the Church infallibility. St. Thomas says it is a BLASPHEMY to say THE CHURCH does anything harmful or even "useless". You willing to commit blasphemy?

    I wonder whether you even read all I responded with. The examples I gave were all changes, all useful and good.
    No, The Church does not make Canon Laws, the pope does. Popes are infallible when they define a doctrine Ex Cathedra, popes are not infallible in the exercise of their legislative power; they are entirely capable of enacting both foolish and bad laws, of commanding that which is foolish and that which is sinful. Although likely blasphemous to you, this is the truth.

    If you disagree, and it seems you do, then you do not understand papal infallibility, nor the difference between that and the Church's infallibility - which is something that is often (not always) distinct from papal infallibility. 

    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1361
    • Reputation: +895/-127
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #154 on: December 20, 2025, 11:10:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Freind on December 20, 2025, 10:45:38 AM
    Just like Stubborn, you can't say when "the Church" does some thing. Look what V2 has done to you.
    You're talking gibberish now

    How's this: "The Church" does teach that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation

    "'The Church" does not teach BOD as a Dogma to be believed and professed by all the faithful

    At the end of the day, you have your opinion. I have mine.
    You can imbibe the Cekadan bitter zeal and condemn all those who do not agree with your opinion as being guilty of mortal sin.

    Or, you can be honest, have some humility, and admit that no Council or no Pope has ever taught BOD to the Universal Church
    Logged
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 447
    • Reputation: +54/-49
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #155 on: December 20, 2025, 11:36:46 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: WorldsAway on December 20, 2025, 11:10:30 AM
    You're talking gibberish now

    How's this: "The Church" does teach that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation

    "'The Church" does not teach BOD as a Dogma to be believed and professed by all the faithful

    At the end of the day, you have your opinion. I have mine.
    You can imbibe the Cekadan bitter zeal and condemn all those who do not agree with your opinion as being guilty of mortal sin.

    Or, you can be honest, have some humility, and admit that no Council or no Pope has ever taught BOD to the Universal Church

    I haven't condemned anyone. I am being honest. But you think "the Church" only "does" some thing when it teaches solemnly in the magisterium. You are SO wrong. It does approves of liturgy, did you know that?
    Logged

    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1361
    • Reputation: +895/-127
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #156 on: December 20, 2025, 11:49:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • SVs regarding BOD and R&R regarding Pope Honorius are pretty similar :popcorn:
    Logged
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4630
    • Reputation: +5370/-479
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #157 on: December 20, 2025, 12:17:47 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • It's always glaringly apparent who's learned theology from pre-vat 2 books and who's learned it from Internet curators. Freind is the former, and that's why he fits in so poorly here. 

    Logged
    "Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church... And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit". (Vermeersch, 1913).

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 447
    • Reputation: +54/-49
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #158 on: Yesterday at 12:41:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mithrandylan on December 20, 2025, 12:17:47 PM
    It's always glaringly apparent who's learned theology from pre-vat 2 books and who's learned it from Internet curators. Freind is the former, and that's why he fits in so poorly here.

    Thank you.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]
    « previous next »