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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]

Author Topic: Syllabus - not signed by Pius IX?  (Read 2026 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cryptinox

  • Supporter
Re: Syllabus - not signed by Pius IX?
« Reply #25 on: June 24, 2021, 01:47:07 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on June 24, 2021, 07:26:03 AM
This is the same false argument that was dealt with before.  I agree that QC was infallible.  This article rightly admits that infallibility it not limited to those propositions condemned with the theological censure of heresy.  Yet the argument that the phrase "contrary to Church doctrine" necessarily denotes heresy is false.  ALL errors are contrary to Church doctrine.  Yet the censure depends on the "degree of separation" from a directly revealed truth, the number of logical steps required to get from revealed truth to the proposition.  This person clearly


Quote
Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.
-Quanta Cura
Invokes Apostolic Authority, addressed to the Universal Church, and declares that errors concerning faith and morals be held as reprobated, proscribed, and condemned.
Sounds infallible to me.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Syllabus - not signed by Pius IX?
« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2021, 03:04:39 PM »
Quote from: Cryptinox on June 24, 2021, 01:47:07 PM
Invokes Apostolic Authority, addressed to the Universal Church, and declares that errors concerning faith and morals be held as reprobated, proscribed, and condemned.
Sounds infallible to me.

So what exactly are you disputing?  I agreed that it was infallible [second sentence in the passage that you quoted from me].  I'm only saying that infallibility isn't limited to the censure of heresy ... which is a point widely agreed upon by theologians.
Logged

Offline Cryptinox

  • Supporter
Re: Syllabus - not signed by Pius IX?
« Reply #27 on: June 24, 2021, 03:15:12 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on June 24, 2021, 03:04:39 PM
So what exactly are you disputing?  I agreed that it was infallible [second sentence in the passage that you quoted from me].  I'm only saying that infallibility isn't limited to the censure of heresy ... which is a point widely agreed upon by theologians.
Just demonstrating how it is infallible.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Syllabus - not signed by Pius IX?
« Reply #28 on: June 24, 2021, 03:27:44 PM »
Quote from: Cryptinox on June 24, 2021, 03:15:12 PM
Just demonstrating how it is infallible.

In quoting me, and by the tone of your response, it sounded like you thought you were refuting something I said, whereas I had already agreed that QC was infallible.
Logged

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: Syllabus - not signed by Pius IX?
« Reply #29 on: June 25, 2021, 12:00:55 AM »
Quote
Byzcat3000 commented:
I'm not persuaded the Syllabus is infallible.

Last Tradhican asked:
What does that mean to you? It can be ignored, dismissed, disregarded because it can be wrong?
 
To me, I have always thought encyclicals on faith and morals to be infallible in that they are written by the pope, the supreme shepherd of God on earth. I am just sheep, and the pope is my shepherd.  I do not care about the legalities, a papal encyclical is a warning to those with eyes to see. You seem to me to be thinking too much like a lawyer, maybe because you do not like what an encyclical says?

No, your attitude is *normally* the correct one.  Its obviously *not* correct in the current situation because of the extreme danger to faith that Francis and other recent popes meant.  While I am not strictly persuaded of the Syllabus' infallibility, I do believe it is authoritative and binding and I submit myself to it.

my saying it wasn't infallible was indeed dealing with the "legal" side of the equation, along the lines of dealing with squaring it with V2 and such.

So then the Sedes come back with, well Pius XII said you have to submit to encyclicals without question, therefore *if* Francis were pope you'd have to do that with Francis encyclicals, therefore... no true scotsman fallacy.

And my answer is... why not just believe humani generis got a bit too optimstic about the papacy?  That what Pius XII said is *normally* solid advice, but can't be strictly followed in the modern situation?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
« previous next »