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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14]

Author Topic: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI  (Read 12294 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #65 on: March 05, 2024, 11:39:54 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on March 05, 2024, 11:11:21 AM
Msgr. Fenton points out the distinctions.  Please read them again.  There's no absolute philosophical assent expected of the non-infallible teaching of a Pope (much less some long expositions that do not claim to be authoritatively teaching anything), but a conditional assent, which can be withheld if some proposition is proven to be erroneous.  Otherwise, you'd have to just power-dump every single word of AAS into the Enchiridion Symbolorum.
.

Fair enough, let's see this again. Before we do, can we agree that the word "assent" means to accept something as true?:


Quote
Ultimately, however, this assent [wait, what assent? Ladislaus says we don't have to assent to non-infallible papal teaching if we think it is not true] is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith [Of course it's not. When one believes something by faith, such as something defined ex cathedra, he is believing not only that it is true, but that is divinely revealed and part of revelation]. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. [Not for Ladislaus, apparently] It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be [Ladislaus definitely doesn't accept this last]. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’.

Lercher teaches that the internal assent due to these pronouncements [wait, I thought there was no assent due to such pronouncements? Ladislaus just told us this.] cannot be called certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term. The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, [the assent Ladislaus is giving to this pronouncement is called nihil non-existens] including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.” [You mean unless Ladislaus discovers something to be erroneous? That would negate everything that has been said so far.] Lyons and Phillips use the same approach in describing the assent Catholics are in conscience bound to give to the Church’s non-infallible teachings. [But Ladislaus is not required to give assent to the Church's non-infallible teachings if he thinks they are wrong, so Lyons and Philips are wrong here.]

Logged

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #66 on: March 05, 2024, 11:44:18 AM »
Crayolcold,

You're about as interested in a boring academic answer to your disinterested intellectual curiosity, as two street brawlers are interested in exploring the physics of potential and kinetic energy as they try to bash each other's brains in.

You're continuing the fight, slugging for "your side", hoping for a win against "the other side". Like 2 street brawlers fighting with pipes and chains. You're not a scientist, calmly, dispassionately experimenting with potential and kinetic energy.

So let's not pretend.

I can tell your mindframe by how you refer to me as "the other side" even though I haven't argued for or against NFP.

I've only posted that it's not a layman's place to "settle" or make any broad pronouncements, anathemas, or define any new dogmas on this moral theology issue, especially for the Catholic Faithful at large. I posted that Fr. Cekada made some very good points about this. Before Vatican II, you didn't have armchair lay theologians posting their useless opinions before millions of eyeballs with little-to-no theological training and NO Ecclesiastical oversight. The Crisis in the Church does NOT justify *everything*. Fr. Cekada was 100% right about that point.

Arriving at any true position on NFP would involve respecting all the principles and known truths/facts involved, and properly applying them in each case. Fr. Cekada did list some of these principles, and frankly I'd like to know how you would dispute any of those points he listed. They sounded like plain facts to me. Easily proved or disproved.

Anyhow, I made the mistake of posting in this thread, so now that I've been swept into the whirlpool against my will, my only option is to lock the thread.

I repeat AGAIN: talk to a good Traditional Catholic priest, one with a Traditional formation. Forget about getting spiritual direction, or confessional advice, from a bunch of laymen on CathInfo.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14]
« previous next »