CathInfo.com

Quote from: SeanJohnson

I can see your stupidity (and the stupidity of LOTI) are becomming occassions of sin to me

Try to make a serious actual argument, would you?  You can no doubt explain why my argument is "stupid" then.

How is it stupid to argue that you reduce infallibility to a meaningless tautology?  Explain how your definition not infallibility does not do this.

You are shooting the messenger.

It was the revisions of JPII, BXVI, and Francis that did this (which you would have known, had you read the article)

Quote from: SJB

When somebody (Sean Johnson)admits that truth is NOT being preserved, he, as a Catholic, must look for a cause other than reinventing the infallibility of the Church and that of the Pope!

Quote from: Relatio of Bp. Vincent Gasser, relator of the faith at Vatican I

The purpose of this prerogative is the preservation of truth in the Church. The special exercise of this prerogative occurs when there arise somewhere in the Church scandals against the faith, i.e., dissensions and heresies which the bishops of the individual churches or even gathered together in provincial council are unable to repress so that they are forced to appeal to the Apostolic See regarding the case, or when the bishops themselves are infected by the sad stain of error. And thereby we do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance. Therefore the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth. These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc. Indeed, the means are diverse according to the diversity of situations, and we should piously believe that, in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontifical judgment.

[...]

 Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail. For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touch upon religion, as the Synod of Pistoia held.
 3. Note well. It is asked in what sense the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is “absolute.” I reply and openly admit: in no sense is pontifical infallibility absolute, because absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, who is the first and essential truth and who is never able to deceive or be deceived. All other infallibility, as communicated for a specific purpose, has its limits and its conditions under which it is considered to be present. The same is valid in reference to the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. For this infallibility is bound by certain limits and conditions. What those conditions may be should be deduced not “a priori” but from the very promise or manifestation of the will of Christ. Now what follows from the promise of Christ, made to Peter and his successors, as far as these conditions are concerned? He promised Peter the gift of inerrancy in Peter’s relation to the Universal Church: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ...” (Mt. 16:18). “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep” (Jn. 21:13-17). Peter, placed outside this relation to the universal Church, does not enjoy in his successors this charism of truth which comes from that certain promise of Christ. Therefore, in reality, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is restricted by reason “of the subject,” that is when the Pope, constituted in the chair of Peter, the center of the Church, speaks as universal teacher and supreme judge: it is restricted by reason of the “object,” i.e., when treating of matters of faith and morals; and by reason of the “act” itself, i.e., when the Pope defines what must be believed or rejected by all the faithful. Nevertheless, some of the most reverend fathers, not content with these conditions, go farther and even want to put into this constitution conditions which are found in different ways in different theological treatises and which concern the good faith and diligence of the Pontiff in searching out and enunciating the truth. However, these things, since they concern the conscience of the Pontiff rather than his relation [to the Church], must be considered as touching on the moral order rather than the dogmatic order. For with great care our Lord Jesus Christ willed that the charism of truth depend not on the conscience of the Pontiff, which is private – even most private – to each person, and known to God alone, but rather on the public relation of the Pontiff to the universal Church. If it were otherwise, this gift of infallibility would not be an effective means for preserving and repairing the unity of the Church. But in no way, therefore, should it be feared that the universal Church could be led into error about faith through the bad faith and negligence of the Pontiff. For the protection of Christ and the divine assistance promised to the successors of Peter is a cause so efficacious that the judgment of the supreme Pontiff would be impeded if it were to be erroneous and destructive of the Church; or, if in fact the Pontiff really arrives at a definition, it will truly stand infallibly.

Same goes for you:

It was JPII, BXVI, and Francis who reinvented a new notion of infallibility (which you would have known, had you read Fr. Gleize's article).

I know I haven't read the article, smartass. I merely commented on a statement made on this thread. Anyway, one doesn't "invent" new notions of solemn definitions, unless one is a heretic. Fr. Gleize's argument can't be that stupid.

John Lane on Fr. Gleize's study:

"As for the theology of canonisation, and whether Fr. Gleize has a point, I maintain the general principle that the process is irrelevant to the security (and therefore the infallibility) of the judgement. Yet I think that the central point he drives at, which is the mysterious question of how a theological conclusion (or a fortiori a dogmatic fact) enters into the fabric of divine revelation (to borrow Mons. Fenton's excellent phrase), is a true mystery. Fr. Marin-Sola and others have debated this at length, and did not reach a consensus, so it's an open question in theology. Fr. Gleize's central point is absolutely the same question, couched in terms appropriate to the matter of canonisation. He is asking what mechanism, so to speak, is employed by the Holy Ghost, cooperating with men, to bring about the complete certitude that is required in order for a proposition ("this man is in heaven and his life, one of heroic not merely ordinary virtue, is to be venerated and imitated") to be "definable." You will have seen from that other thread that I don't find Fr. Marin-Sola's reasoning compelling, but even on my view the question is relevant, because if we are to have what is called purely ecclesiastical faith in a doctrine (e.g. a canonisation, a theological conclusion, a dogmatic fact), infallibly defined as these are, we must posit some theory as to how and why the Holy Ghost acts to bridge the gap between human judgement and divine certitude. On the foundation of the analogy with dogmas, I say that whatever the process, the result is still infallible. But the point I am making is simply this - can we say that Fr. Gleize is certainly wrong in the light of theology, or can we only say that our opinion differs with his. It's an important distinction."

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1606&start=60