Dear DecemRationis, with regard to Papal heresy - I believe as do the Doctors, that the divine promise safeguards the Pope from being a heretic while exercising his office, but not as a private person in his unofficial capacity. If, as a private theologian, a Roman Pontiff ever became a public and formal heretic, with the pertinacity established by the Cardinals and a Synod of Bishops, he would fall outside the Church and cease to be Pope. The Church - not private individuals outside the Apostolic succession, but the Bishops and Cardinals who have received Apostolic authority from Peter through prior Popes - can declare this fact and collectively elect a new Pope.
Dear Nishant, we are not talking about “private opinions.” We are talking Magisterial teachings, affirmed in Roman “offices” with the pope’s authority. We are talking about Church accords with heretics, etc. - not some “opinion” given by the pope at a lecture or in a book.
Yet even then, that would only resolve the issue of the Church’s infallibility or indefectiblity failing, no? Would that resolve the issue of the legitimacy of a pope who was a
heretic by expressing an opinion contrary to prior Magisterial teaching when he made it? Perhaps.
But still, we are not talking about “private opinion."
Would your second point deal with my objection to your “private opinion” view? Let’s see:
As to the other question, one thing is to have a personal conviction that a teaching is irreformable and that the Magisterium will definitely affirm this one day and another is to say, while discussions are still going on, that the other side are heretics. Many Thomists held that Molinism is incorrect and opposed to the Second Synod of Orange and Trent, but when the Church decided She would hear arguments from both sides before pronouncing definitive judgment, out of love and devotion to the Apostolic See, they refrained from accusing the others of heresy; we should do likewise, because only the Church can say at some future time that one of the two opinions which are currently permitted and have been taught by Saints and Doctors (like St. Alphonsus in Theologia Moralis, of whom the Pope said, "Why come to Rome? Ask Fr. Ligouri" when a question was posed to him) as allowable in the theology manuals used in seminaries for centuries is now closed. They have been used in seminaries with the approval of Popes and Doctors. In a similar way, St. Francis De Sales was in favor of not passing definitive judgment between Thomism and Molinism, at least for a while, until one side made a better case from Scripture and Tradition than the other. I believe the Church will settle the matter in favor of explicit faith one day, we can work to make that happen, but we cannot pass that judgment ourselves.
A good point regarding the Molinists and Thomists. I know Father Garrigou- Lagrange rejected the Molinist view and gave a very detailed exposition of it in his book, Predestination. I will go back and look at the Scriptural and Magisterial bases for the rejection of Molinism by the Thomists, to see if it rises to the level I address below.
I say the requirement of “explicit faith” has been solemnly proclaimed by the Magisterium. I adduce the Athanasian Creed, Cantate Domino, and Session VI, Chapter IV of Trent. I will perhaps post the sections in another post time availing, though you do not need them.
To summarize my view: the AC pronounces the “Catholic faith” as necessary, and describes as a minimum belief in the Trinity and Incarnation; CD says no “Jew” or “pagan” can be saved unless they are “joined to Her [i.e. the Church]”; and, Trent says the translation to justice cannot be effected “after the promulgation of the Gospel” without baptism “or the desire thereof.”
“Good faith” Jews remain, well, “Jews,” and were around before the “promulgation of the Gospel” (Trent, Session VI, Chapter IV). Now, they must be “joined with” the Church - if they remained “Jews,” necessarily per CD they would not be going to a state where they were “joined with Her," since they weren’t when the CD described them as “Jews” needing to be joined. The AC says that the necessary supernatural “Catholic faith” entails belief in the Trinity and Incarnation, which, were one to do so, they would not remain a “Jew” or a “pagan,” and would be “joined with Her” consistently with CD.
Is this not clear? Forgive me, but does the necessity of a simple rational inference - not even required with the AC, and hardly with the CD or Trent - or an obvious consideration that precludes an “implicit faith” reading of the AC, CD and Trent mean the Church has not pronounced on the issue?
To me, that’s a quibble. It makes a move towards (note my qualification - I have nothing but respect for you and don’t want you to take this the wrong way) what this apostate Vatican II Church has done with language, and what heretics have often done with language, cf. Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei.
DR
Topic: Suprema Haec and Vatican II on EENS (Read 5948 times)