Author Topic: Dimond Contradiction (Read 9044 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** April 17, 2015, 10:45:04 AM »

In their latest video attacking R&R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1067&v=b1v5t0xbcUo

Dimonds spent a significant amount of time attacking the notion that the authentic Magisterium "can contain error". But in the past they CONSTANTLY disregard teachings of the non-infallible Magisterium (=authentic non-infallible Magisterium). Let's take for example Pius XII's Allocution to Midwives, an act of the authentic Magisterium; they reject it as being non-infallible. In fact there is CLEARLY such a thing as non-infallible authentic Magisterium. They must have no understanding of the term "authentic Magisterium".

Unfortunately they rarely fail to mix error, oversimplification, and lack of appropriate distinctions into some otherwise valid points.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** April 17, 2015, 10:49:59 AM »

Of course, the SSPX.org statements that the Dimonds attack are equally idiotic.

They claim that the authentic Magisterium is not infallible ... as if there's a bifurcation between the two.

WITHIN the authentic Magisterium there are infallible and non-infallible teachings. So the authentic Magisterium can be infallible and it also can be fallible, depending on the nature of the teaching.

Why is there so much bad theology on every side of these issues?

Cantarella · « **Reply #2 on:** April 17, 2015, 11:36:34 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

WITHIN the authentic Magisterium there are infallible and non-infallible teachings. So the authentic Magisterium can be infallible and it also can be fallible, depending on the nature of the teaching.

That sums it up.

In an age where there is such an unbridled means of information reaching so many people at one time, the disproportionate reach of bad theology cannot be controlled and over-all confusion and error are expected. The average Catholic can hardly trust any information that is presented to him and most do not even have the necessary Catholic foundation rooted in solid catechism to discern such information.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** April 17, 2015, 12:59:11 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ladislaus

WITHIN the authentic Magisterium there are infallible and non-infallible teachings. So the authentic Magisterium can be infallible and it also can be fallible, depending on the nature of the teaching.

That sums it up.

In an age where there is such an unbridled means of information reaching so many people at one time, the disproportionate reach of bad theology cannot be controlled and over-all confusion and error are expected. The average Catholic can hardly trust any information that is presented to him and most do not even have the necessary Catholic foundation rooted in solid catechism to discern such information.

Now, the Dimonds never had formal training in scholastic Logic, Philosophy, and Theology. But these priests make me want to pull my hair out. They took the exact same courses that I did in seminary and MORE, since I eventually dropped out. Were they asleep the whole time?

On the one side you have the Dimonds saying that the authentic Magisterium is infallible and on the other the SSPX saying that it's fallible. For crying out loud.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** April 17, 2015, 03:08:19 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Ladislaus
They must have no understanding of the term "authentic Magisterium".

Please...explain the authentic Magisterium. Can you explain what the "non-infallible Magisterium" is?

Authentic Magisterium simply refers to the authoritative and official Magisterium of the Pope (or, in alternative contexts, the bishops). Church Law declared, for instance, that anything appearing in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis must be considered the "authentic and official" papal Magisterium. It's opposed, for instance, to the Pope teaching as a private person. Prior to organs like the AAS that would sometimes have to be inferred from context.

Within the authentic Magisterium you have some things that meet the notes of infallibility and some things that do not, thus the division within the authentic Magisterium between infallible and non-infallible.

Malleus · « **Reply #5 on:** April 17, 2015, 03:39:54 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

In their latest video attacking R&R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1067&v=b1v5t0xbcUo

Dimonds spent a significant amount of time attacking the notion that the authentic Magisterium "can contain error". But in the past they CONSTANTLY disregard teachings of the non-infallible Magisterium (=authentic non-infallible Magisterium). Let's take for example Pius XII's Allocution to Midwives, an act of the authentic Magisterium; they reject it as being non-infallible. In fact there is CLEARLY such a thing as non-infallible authentic Magisterium. They must have no understanding of the term "authentic Magisterium".

Unfortunately they rarely fail to mix error, oversimplification, and lack of appropriate distinctions into some otherwise valid points.

You're in the same boat as Los Dimonianos as well, that is, you do your own "theology" and reject authority and theologians etc. so you're nobody to be talking about contradictions.

Malleus · « **Reply #6 on:** April 17, 2015, 07:57:46 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Why is there so much bad theology on every side of these issues?

Easy with the "so much bad theology on every side" assertion.

The only ones with bad (actually non-Catholic) theology are people like you, all the r&rers and those "self-taught" SV's like the Dimonds and Ibranyi.

Matto · « **Reply #7 on:** April 17, 2015, 08:04:09 PM »

Quote from: Malleus

Quote from: Ladislaus
Why is there so much bad theology on every side of these issues?

Easy with the "so much bad theology on every side" assertion.

The only ones with bad (actually non-Catholic) theology are people like you, all the r&rers and those "self-taught" SV's like the Dimonds and Ibranyi.

LOL

Malleus · « **Reply #8 on:** April 17, 2015, 11:07:04 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Malleus
Quote from: Ladislaus
Why is there so much bad theology on every side of these issues?

Easy with the "so much bad theology on every side" assertion.

The only ones with bad (actually non-Catholic) theology are people like you, all the r&rers and those "self-taught" SV's like the Dimonds and Ibranyi.

LOL

What's funny?

Croixalist · « **Reply #9 on:** April 18, 2015, 01:56:44 PM »

Quote from: Malleus

What's funny?

Never play musical chairs with a sedevacantist. :geezer:

roscoe · « **Reply #10 on:** April 19, 2015, 01:21:46 AM »

There is No Such Thing as a ' sedevacantist'.... :detective:

Malleus · « **Reply #11 on:** April 19, 2015, 02:23:08 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

There is No Such Thing as a ' sedevacantist'.... :detective:

Is this the 1384th time you repeat this?

Croixalist · « **Reply #12 on:** April 19, 2015, 09:13:49 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

There is No Such Thing as a ' sedevacantist'.... :detective:

...and right on cue, the music stops.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #13 on:** April 19, 2015, 01:32:54 PM »

Best way to ride in this Crisis is sedeprivationism :cool:

Malleus · « **Reply #14 on:** April 19, 2015, 07:55:38 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

In their latest video attacking R&R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1067&v=b1v5t0xbcUo

Dimonds spent a significant amount of time attacking the notion that the authentic Magisterium "can contain error". But in the past they CONSTANTLY disregard teachings of the non-infallible Magisterium (=authentic non-infallible Magisterium). Let's take for example Pius XII's Allocution to Midwives, an act of the authentic Magisterium; they reject it as being non-infallible. In fact there is CLEARLY such a thing as non-infallible authentic Magisterium. They must have no understanding of the term "authentic Magisterium".

Unfortunately they rarely fail to mix error, oversimplification, and lack of appropriate distinctions into some otherwise valid points.

Did you seriously sit through their whole 57 min video?