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

Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II  (Read 9862 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11980
  • Reputation: +4647/-767
  • Gender: Male
:facepalm:  What "conundrum"?
You have a few, one that stands out is your idea that the Church teaches popes are always infallibly safe to follow and cannot do harm to the Church - all the while while heretic popes do harm to the Church resulting in you promoting the idea that the chair is vacant instead of realizing the Church teaches no such thing. You have a few others stemming from this one, but to what end?

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

Online Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30623
  • Reputation: +18034/-4522
  • Gender: Male
EENS is in fact a perfect example of the problem.  Yes, there's EENS.  But there are dozens of "interpretations" of EENS.  It's not enough for there to be dogmatic definition.  There must be ongoing interpretation and also the correction of mis-interpretations.  In your vision, short of a new follow-on dogmatic definition, there's no reliable authority in the papal Magisterium to be the authoritative interpreter.

Some things have been decided by past papal Magisterium.  But who cares?  In your warping of the Catholic Magisterium, those papal interventions could have been wrong, and there's no reason they can't be criticized or reject short of when it was done by way of solemn pronouncement.

When Pius IX condemned religious liberty, he could have been wrong.  Vatican II could have in fact been correcting Pius IX's mistake.  You have absolutely no way of knowing.


Online Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30623
  • Reputation: +18034/-4522
  • Gender: Male
You have a few, one that stands out is your idea that the Church teaches popes are always infallibly safe to follow and cannot do harm to the Church - all the while while heretic popes do harm to the Church resulting in you promoting the idea that the chair is vacant instead of realizing the Church teaches no such thing. You have a few others stemming from this one, but to what end?

You either idiotically misunderstand my position or are maliciously warping it.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8408
  • Reputation: +4972/-1528
  • Gender: Male

Quote
EENS is in fact a perfect example of the problem.  Yes, there's EENS.  But there are dozens of "interpretations" of EENS. 
The literal reading of a dogma, as the literal reading of the Bible, has always been the "general" rule on how the Church tells us to read such things.



Quote
It's not enough for there to be dogmatic definition.
For many dogmas, the definition suffices and no re-interpretation was necessary.  For EENS, you're correct, the devil won't let that one go, so he keeps attacking it.



Quote
There must be ongoing interpretation and also the correction of mis-interpretations. 
For EENS, yes, there must be on going interpretations ONLY because of ongoing attacks.  Some dogmas were defined once and it's settled.




Quote
In your vision, short of a new follow-on dogmatic definition, there's no reliable authority in the papal Magisterium to be the authoritative interpreter.
Yes, the pope is the only authoritative interpreter.  If the pope uses his magisterial authority to interpret, that is typically done using a dogmatic definition.  The other way, is if a pope uses non-solemn dogmatic decrees to authoritatively re-teach something (i.e. when JPII re-taught that only men can be priests.)


But...if the pope uses neither of these 2 modes of authority, then his interpretation isn't authoritative, by definition.  There is no such thing as a non-authoritative authority.

But honestly, I need an example from you to better understand.

Quote
Some things have been decided by past papal Magisterium.  But who cares?  In your warping of the Catholic Magisterium, those papal interventions could have been wrong, and there's no reason they can't be criticized or reject short of when it was done by way of solemn pronouncement.
I've never said this.  You're misinterpreting my arguments.

Quote
When Pius IX condemned religious liberty, he could have been wrong.  Vatican II could have in fact been correcting Pius IX's mistake.  You have absolutely no way of knowing.
The point is, Pius IX's condemnation (while not solemn) is in line with previous papal condemnations.  Thus, it's traditional.  No one ever claimed Pius IX's actions were novel.


V2 is condemned on the simple basis that it's novel and contradicts previous popes.

Offline Stubborn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11980
  • Reputation: +4647/-767
  • Gender: Male
You either idiotically misunderstand my position or are maliciously warping it.
You posted maybe a dozen times that it is, as I said: "Your belief that popes are always infallibly safe to follow and cannot do harm to the Church"......


Do you even read your own posts?

Quote
And yet you continue to ignore what Msgr. Fenton has to say about the authority of Papal Encyclicals.

In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.

It is not I who idiotically misunderstand your position, your position is quite clear - it is you, your confused self who apparently misunderstands your own position.
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 Pax Vobis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8408
  • Reputation: +4972/-1528
  • Gender: Male
And just like *that*, Ladislaus is gone.  He runs away again.  Whenever there is a civil discourse to try to explain the magisterium and Tradition, he avoids it like the plague.  This about the 6th time this has happened in over 3 years.  Why?  One wonders...

After all, the anti-V2 movement was called "Traditional Catholic" for a reason - to use "Traditional" to mean "magisterial", "infallible", "already decided".  There's something that Ladislaus doesn't like about this definition.  I wish I knew.  I consider him a good e-friend; I would be honored to meet him in person (as well as many other from this site).  But I don't get why this topic is so sensitive.  It's the key to understanding the current crisis.