Author Topic: Questions fro JAM  (Read 197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline An even Seven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1697
  • Reputation: +692/-468
  • Gender: Male
Questions fro JAM
« on: November 08, 2017, 11:49:33 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Continuing from the other thread because I fear I may have hijacked a little.

    From my perspective, this discussion is not about Baptism of Desire, but rather it is about the erroneous notion that the Church would promulgate teachings contrary to Herself.
    It's about BOD. I contend that it's a tradition of man. You say it's official Church Teaching. You say that since it's canon law, that it's infallible. I say that if it were infallible then it should not be contradicted by something else infallible. This is why I bring up the canon of Braga as noted in the CE.
    Quote
     Specifically, I believe it is incorrect to interpret one Truth in a way that makes it contradict another.  The proper orientation would be to show how each does not oppose the other.  
    I am of this opinion also. This is why I am asking you again to give an explanation, however brief or lengthy you wish, as to how these two quotes can be reconciled. Your quote (which is from Canon Law) and my quote (which is a small council attended by Bishops, authenticated by Pope Innocent) are, according to you, all part of the Magisterium, and therefore cannot contradict each other. Please show the consistency between the quotes.
    Quote
    In this specific instance, the manner in which the Church treats a Catechumen who dies before receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, Canon Law would prevail as the Church's teaching on the topic.  God, and God alone, would know the circumstances of the Catechumen's demise.
    Why would canon law prevail? You do not contend that either quote are part of the solemn magisterium correct? You contend that the two should be reconcilable correct? Why do you need to say that one prevails against the other if they both require assent?


    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1474
    • Reputation: +853/-333
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Questions fro JAM
    « Reply #1 on: November 08, 2017, 04:54:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24


    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2934
    • Reputation: +735/-773
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Questions fro JAM
    « Reply #2 on: November 08, 2017, 05:03:54 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 1. Just where is it taught that canon law is a rule of faith, proximal or otherwise?
    2. How can that which is expressly not binding on the entire Church, be infallible?
    3. Canonists/Canon lawyers/Canonical competence... just how many box tops or proofs of purchase seals do I have to mail in to get those?
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1697
    • Reputation: +692/-468
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Questions fro JAM
    « Reply #3 on: November 09, 2017, 07:27:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 1. Just where is it taught that canon law is a rule of faith, proximal or otherwise? It's not!
    2. How can that which is expressly not binding on the entire Church, be infallible? It can't!
    3. Canonists/Canon lawyers/Canonical competence... just how many box tops or proofs of purchase seals do I have to mail in to get those? 14!
    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16