Author Topic: Feeneyism condemned by Pope Gregory XVI (Read 6246 times)

BumphreyHogart · « **on:** March 11, 2017, 02:59:12 PM »

Pope Gregory XVI

"Moreover, do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?........The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?"

(Quo Graviora, 1833)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 11, 2017, 06:30:14 PM »

Idiot.

So we see again the grossly misinterpreted source for "negative infallibility."

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #2 on:** March 11, 2017, 06:48:04 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Idiot.

So we see again the grossly misinterpreted source for "negative infallibility."

Apparently, you don't really read responses in this sub-forum....

Negative infallibility is a description of papal infallibility because it doesn't involve inspiration, or something the pope actually has an practices. It means that his infallibility involves something external to him - namely, a divine preventative (negative) promise to prevent him from erring against faith or morals.

You are off base in bringing this up here.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 11, 2017, 10:37:30 PM »

This quote really says it all. How many times in this sub forum do we see the Feeneyites using the "not infallible" argument, and also the argument that Pope after Pope has supposedly allowed heresy without putting a stop to it. This quote shows these Feeneyite arguments cannot possibly be the case.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** March 13, 2017, 09:03:50 AM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: Ladislaus
Idiot.

So we see again the grossly misinterpreted source for "negative infallibility."

Apparently, you don't really read responses in this sub-forum....

Negative infallibility is a description of papal infallibility because it doesn't involve inspiration, or something the pope actually has an practices. It means that his infallibility involves something external to him - namely, a divine preventative (negative) promise to prevent him from erring against faith or morals.

You are off base in bringing this up here.

And you're a newbie ... negative infallibility is the term we came up with as shorthand for the nonsense originally promoted here on CI by the poster Nado.

It's this notion that if the Church has not condemned some opinion floating around out there, that must make the notion true. In fact, at one point on another thread, you even went so far as to claim that if the Church has not CONDEMNED an opinion that's held by a significant number of Catholics, then that opinion MUST be believed.

You make a mockery of the Church's infallibility.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** March 13, 2017, 09:05:46 AM »

CLEARLY the Church can and does allow a range of opinions on some matters ... usually for prudential reasons. This doesn't mean all of the opinions within that range are true. In fact, the opinions allowed by the Church are often mutually exclusive, meaning that if one is true the other cannot be true.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** March 13, 2017, 09:16:14 AM »

Just one example --

Catechisms in Ireland with official ecclesiastical approbation taught AGAINST papal infallibility before Vatican I (but were changed after Vatican I). Clearly this teaching was wrong.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** March 13, 2017, 09:17:26 AM »

Another example --

Church ended up tolerating BOTH opinions in the Thomist vs. Molinist controversy. [I personally believe that the Molinist opinion is dead wrong and that the Thomists/Dominicans were correct.]

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #8 on:** March 13, 2017, 10:39:17 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: Ladislaus
Idiot.

So we see again the grossly misinterpreted source for "negative infallibility."

Apparently, you don't really read responses in this sub-forum....

Negative infallibility is a description of papal infallibility because it doesn't involve inspiration, or something the pope actually has an practices. It means that his infallibility involves something external to him - namely, a divine preventative (negative) promise to prevent him from erring against faith or morals.

You are off base in bringing this up here.

And you're a newbie ... negative infallibility is the term we came up with as shorthand for the nonsense originally promoted here on CI by the poster Nado.

It's this notion that if the Church has not condemned some opinion floating around out there, that must make the notion true. In fact, at one point on another thread, you even went so far as to claim that if the Church has not CONDEMNED an opinion that's held by a significant number of Catholics, then that opinion MUST be believed.

You make a mockery of the Church's infallibility.

You make a mockery of yourself and infallibility...

"we came up with" ?? You mean to say that you alone invented it, and you changed a legitimate meaning of negative infallibility to refer to somthing else than Catholicism used it for. Don't pretend like it was some legitimate group effort.

And, what you attribute to me as having said, you warped into a straw man. Try quoting me.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** March 13, 2017, 10:46:20 AM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

"we came up with" ??

We came up with the term, moron, not the concept. It was shorthand (out of convenience) for a concept invented by Nado.

Matto · « **Reply #10 on:** March 13, 2017, 11:10:36 AM »

I have a thought about the Church allowing for funeral Masses for Catechumens in the 1917 code so that proves they can be saved by BOD, right? But the Church forbade funeral Masses for Catechumens for most of history. Does that then prove the opposite? If BOD is true and in most versions of BOD I have heard about say that those with BOD still have to go to purgatory, then by refusing funeral Masses for dead Catechumens for most of history, the Church was allowing all those souls to fry in purgatory with no help from the Church on earth for all those years. Wouldn't that be wicked? Does that prove that there is no BOD because Church law would not abandon all of those souls to purgatory without the aid of funeral Masses?

happenby · « **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2017, 11:16:28 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: BumphreyHogart
"we came up with" ??

We came up with the term, moron, not the concept. It was shorthand (out of convenience) for a concept invented by Nado.

This alone is proof that BH here is willing to snatch anything out of thin air and think it comes from the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** March 13, 2017, 11:29:50 AM »

Quote from: Matto

I have a thought about the Church allowing for funeral Masses for Catechumens in the 1917 code so that proves they can be saved by BOD, right? But the Church forbade funeral Masses for Catechumens for most of history. Does that then prove the opposite? If BOD is true and in most versions of BOD I have heard about say that those with BOD still have to go to purgatory, then by refusing funeral Masses for dead Catechumens for most of history, the Church was allowing all those souls to fry in purgatory with no help from the Church on earth for all those years. Wouldn't that be wicked? Does that prove that there is no BOD because Church law would not abandon all of those souls to purgatory without the aid of funeral Masses?

Yes, neither the Code of Canon Law NOR the previous discipline are DOCTRINAL in nature. They're pastoral practices. All you're doing is leaving open the HYPOTHETICAL possibility that a catechumen who died before Baptism MIGHT be saved. In other words, the question of BoD is NOT CLOSED in the eyes of the Church.

Similarly, at one time the Church might permit a ѕυιcιdє to receive a funeral, at other times not. Why? We know that it is THEORETICALLY possible that a ѕυιcιdє may have been saved. But for various reasons (scandal vs. sending a strong message about the evil of ѕυιcιdє, etc.), the Church may, for prudential/pastoral reasons, change the practice one way or another. Canon Law is not a substitute for doctrine.

happenby · « **Reply #13 on:** March 13, 2017, 11:48:37 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Matto
I have a thought about the Church allowing for funeral Masses for Catechumens in the 1917 code so that proves they can be saved by BOD, right? But the Church forbade funeral Masses for Catechumens for most of history. Does that then prove the opposite? If BOD is true and in most versions of BOD I have heard about say that those with BOD still have to go to purgatory, then by refusing funeral Masses for dead Catechumens for most of history, the Church was allowing all those souls to fry in purgatory with no help from the Church on earth for all those years. Wouldn't that be wicked? Does that prove that there is no BOD because Church law would not abandon all of those souls to purgatory without the aid of funeral Masses?

Yes, neither the Code of Canon Law NOR the previous discipline are DOCTRINAL in nature. They're pastoral practices. All you're doing is leaving open the HYPOTHETICAL possibility that a catechumen who died before Baptism MIGHT be saved. In other words, the question of BoD is NOT CLOSED in the eyes of the Church.

Similarly, at one time the Church might permit a ѕυιcιdє to receive a funeral, at other times not. Why? We know that it is THEORETICALLY possible that a ѕυιcιdє may have been saved. But for various reasons (scandal vs. sending a strong message about the evil of ѕυιcιdє, etc.), the Church may, for prudential/pastoral reasons, change the practice one way or another. Canon Law is not a substitute for doctrine.

This is all true. In keeping with infallible Church teachings, since the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary, along with Church membership, they might be saved by a miraculous Sacrament of Baptism unseen. There is nothing to stop God from getting the remedy for Original Sin to anyone, outward sign or not. But there is no reason for bod'ers to teach that God must work this miracle through desire/faith alone, against His emphatic Catholic teachings.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #14 on:** March 13, 2017, 12:43:21 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: BumphreyHogart
"we came up with" ??

We came up with the term, moron, not the concept. It was shorthand (out of convenience) for a concept invented by Nado.

Negative infallibility was already a real Catholic concept, as I explained. So, what YOU did (alone) was take a Catholic term and apply it to what you considered to not be Catholic. Talk about degrading!

Just where is this concept invented by Nado. Any links? Or just a bad memory? I think the latter, because you already mischaracterized what I said recently.