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

Author Topic: Dimond Contradiction  (Read 9934 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dimond Contradiction
« Reply #45 on: April 28, 2015, 01:55:45 PM »
Quote from: Bellator Dei
Quote from: Cantarella

3. Ordinary teaching on faith and morals -> Faithful are to adhere to these with religious assent (which is different from the assent of Faith (assensus fidei) of #1 and #2) (This is where the merely Ordinary Magisterium is)

4. Ordinary prudential teachings on disciplinary matters ->These include routine publications of the various organs of the Holy See or the dioceses. These may differ according to circuмstances of time and place. An external assent is due to the teachings of this category but the possibility of error entering into this level of teaching is stronger than with #3. (This is probably where Pius XII Allocution to Midwives is)



Sounds very post Vatican IIish....

What are your sources/references for these types of magisterial teachings?



Don't even bother reading anything this woman writes, she doesn't know anything and is stubborn as a mule.

Dimond Contradiction
« Reply #46 on: April 28, 2015, 02:03:30 PM »
Quote from: Bellator Dei
Quote from: Cantarella
This is all codified in the Code of Canon Law and in the Holy See's standard Profession of Faith made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Don't be so ready to dismiss it just because it does not have a "magic" date pre- 1962. Please don't fall into that error of "fiftiesim" so common in traditionalists that if something is not dated before Vatican II is necessarily bad or vice-versa. It prevents you from forming an objective discernment. The Church did not defect overnight. If you have a real objection to it, you can read the full docuмent here and also in the Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei, and we can discuss your objections.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html


Thank you for the source.

I don't dismiss anything based on dates.

The sources you cite above, Ratzinger and Bertone, are two modernists that I have no problem dismissing.  

It's not proper to say that the Church has defected.  Remember, it's the modernists like Bertone and Ratzinger that defected from the Catholic Church.  


Just because?

Do you dismiss the Code of Canon Law? The provided link contains the relevant canons.

Did you even read the relevant canons? I bet you did not.


Quote

Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1371, n. 1 of the Code of Canon Law, consequently, will receive an appropriate reference to canon 750 § 2, so that it will now read:

Canon 1371 – The following are to be punished with a just penalty:

1° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in canon 1364 § 1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecuмenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in canon 750 § 2 or in canon 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;

2° a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience.

B) Canon 598 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches will now have two paragraphs: the first will present the text of the existing canon and the second will contain a new text. Thus canon 598, in its complete form, will read as follows:

Canon 598 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1436 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, consequently, will receive an appropriate reference to canon 598 § 2, so that it will now read:

Canon 1436 – § 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.



Respond, what exactly are your objections to the above?



Dimond Contradiction
« Reply #47 on: April 28, 2015, 02:23:48 PM »
Quote from: Malleus
Quote from: Bellator Dei
Quote from: Cantarella

3. Ordinary teaching on faith and morals -> Faithful are to adhere to these with religious assent (which is different from the assent of Faith (assensus fidei) of #1 and #2) (This is where the merely Ordinary Magisterium is)

4. Ordinary prudential teachings on disciplinary matters ->These include routine publications of the various organs of the Holy See or the dioceses. These may differ according to circuмstances of time and place. An external assent is due to the teachings of this category but the possibility of error entering into this level of teaching is stronger than with #3. (This is probably where Pius XII Allocution to Midwives is)



Sounds very post Vatican IIish....

What are your sources/references for these types of magisterial teachings?



Don't even bother reading anything this woman writes, she doesn't know anything and is stubborn as a mule.


Whoa there.

That hasn’t been my experience at all.

But maybe I’m a jackass - there, beat you to it.

Dimond Contradiction
« Reply #48 on: April 28, 2015, 03:41:28 PM »
Here, Bellator Dei,

I found the same relevant canon in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, (Canon 1166) that you just dismissed from my Vatican link.

Are you happy now?

Or what is it that you object?

Dimond Contradiction
« Reply #49 on: April 28, 2015, 04:13:05 PM »
Another canon you may want to familiarize with:

Quote from: Canon 752

While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.