Author Topic: New book arguing against Sedevacantism (Read 80819 times)

PaulFC · « **Reply #275 on:** December 01, 2015, 09:12:12 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Here is a screenshot referent to the 1917 Code of Canon Law about the Teaching Authority of the Church. The relevant part is 1166. In particular, this statement:

Quote

No part of the religious teaching is to be understood as dogmatically declared and defined, unless such a is clearly known to have been made (Canon 1323)

A teaching is not infallible unless it meets the conditions for infallibility. As simple as that. The confusion resides in the assumption that a fallible teaching, is necessarily an error, which is not so either.

Cantarella,

You don't seem to understand the subject we are discussing here. The above quote is referring to a solemn declaration from the solemn magisterium and is perfectly legitimate. That particular statement is not referring to the ordinary magisterium.

Maybe a real world example will help clarify how this all works. For the first 3 centuries after Christ, the entire Catholic world learned their faith through the ordinary magisterium (the continuous, unanimous teaching among the Pope, all the bishops, and anyone helping them). There had been no solemn teaching (solemn magisterium) yet. During those 3 centuries, Catholics learned about the divinity of Christ, which was taught unanimously across all bishops. All the bishops knew well about the promise that the Church could not possibly teach error, so they knew the doctrine on the divinity of Christ was true without a doubt, having been taught unanimously between all of them without the Holy Ghost preventing it. This is the infallible ordinary magisterium in progress.

When Arius started teaching contrary to the other bishops on the divinity of Christ, the other bishops tried to correct him, knowing with absolute certainty he was wrong based on what I just said above, even though there had been no solemn teaching yet. When Arius refused to correct his belief, the bishops circulated a letter saying he was guilty of teaching heretically against the continuous teaching of the Church (the ordinary magisterium). When Arius still refused to teach in unison with the other bishops, they called the Council of Nicaea and condemned him as a heretic, and at the same time solemnly defined the doctrine on the divinity of Christ so no one would make the same mistake in the future. This was the first time the Church had used the solemn magisterium - a full 3 centuries after Christ). After this, the infallible ordinary magisterium continued on its way. At this point, the doctrine on the divinity of Christ was now basically the only teaching of both the ordinary magisterium and the solemn magisterium.

Since then, the solemn magisterium has only been called to form a General Council 20 times in 2000 years, and each time it was simply to clarify a teaching of the ordinary magisterium that was being attacked at the time. Catholics historically have always learned their faith through the ordinary magisterium, which is guaranteed infallible. The infallible solemn magisterium steps in only in rare cases, like a referee would, to clarify and straighten out problems. Once the referee has done his job, the ordinary magisterium resumes day-to-day infallible teaching. Hopefully that helps clarify how the ordinary and the solemn magisterium work together to form one, continuous infallible teaching of the Church.

Cantarella · « **Reply #276 on:** December 01, 2015, 10:44:38 PM »

Quote from: PaulFC

Since then, the solemn magisterium has only been called to form a General Council 20 times in 2000 years, and each time it was simply to clarify a teaching of the ordinary magisterium that was being attacked at the time. Catholics historically have always learned their faith through the ordinary magisterium, which is guaranteed infallible. The infallible solemn magisterium steps in only in rare cases, like a referee would, to clarify and straighten out problems. Once the referee has done his job, the ordinary magisterium resumes day-to-day infallible teaching. Hopefully that helps clarify how the ordinary and the solemn magisterium work together to form one, continuous infallible teaching of the Church.

No, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia is very explicit when it teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium (Magisterium Ordinarium), is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ of Infallibility:

Quote from: 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the Magisterium Ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

Cantarella · « **Reply #277 on:** December 01, 2015, 11:05:22 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

When the Magisterium teaches the faithful, it cannot err - it's that simple.

Bellator Dei,

Would you not agree that the Magisterium made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office of 1949 when it taught that "Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing...

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."

This error was actually carried over the Vatican II Council docuмents, specifically, in Lumen Gentium 16:

Quote from: LG, 16

"'Those also can attain to everlasting life who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God, and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.'

This passage above has a its footnote nothing less than the "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston". (*(19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72)

The sedevacantists arguing in this thread, all, with the exception of you, are ready to condemn as entirely heretical nothing less that an ecuмenical council docuмent; yet they have a serious problem admitting the possibility of error in this fallible Letter created to please the Jews and Judaizers teaching the same thing.

Gregory I · « **Reply #278 on:** December 01, 2015, 11:48:40 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Bellator Dei

When the Magisterium teaches the faithful, it cannot err - it's that simple.

Bellator Dei,

Would you not agree that the Magisterium made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office of 1949 when it taught that "Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing...

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."

This error was actually carried over the Vatican II Council docuмents, specifically, in Lumen Gentium 16:

Quote from: LG, 16

"'Those also can attain to everlasting life who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God, and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.'

This passage above has a its footnote nothing less than the "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston". (*(19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72)

The sedevacantists arguing in this thread, all, with the exception of you, are ready to condemn as entirely heretical nothing less that an ecuмenical council docuмent; yet they have a serious problem admitting the possibility of error in this fallible Letter created to please the Jews and Judaizers teaching the same thing.

That is not an error Cantarella, there is such a thing as implicit faith, you exercise it all the time. It is you r good will to accept all that the Church teaches as true even if you do not know it. That is implicit faith.

A person who is told the truth of the gospel, but does not hear the fullness, but believes what he HAS heard, has implicit faith. And this faith can justify him, and if he dies justified, he will be glorified.

PaulFC · « **Reply #279 on:** December 01, 2015, 11:51:32 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: PaulFC

Since then, the solemn magisterium has only been called to form a General Council 20 times in 2000 years, and each time it was simply to clarify a teaching of the ordinary magisterium that was being attacked at the time. Catholics historically have always learned their faith through the ordinary magisterium, which is guaranteed infallible. The infallible solemn magisterium steps in only in rare cases, like a referee would, to clarify and straighten out problems. Once the referee has done his job, the ordinary magisterium resumes day-to-day infallible teaching. Hopefully that helps clarify how the ordinary and the solemn magisterium work together to form one, continuous infallible teaching of the Church.

No, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia is very explicit when it teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium (Magisterium Ordinarium), is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ of Infallibility:

Quote from: 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the Magisterium Ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

You are changing the words of this quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It doesn't say, "organ of infallibility", it just says "organ". Furthermore, you are misinterpreting the sentence because the same article you are referring to confirms the ordinary magisterium is an organ of infallibility. Here's the complete quote from the article:

Mutual Relations of the Organs of Infallibility

A few brief remarks under this head will serve to make the Catholic conception of ecclesiastical infallibility still clearer. Three organs have been mentioned:

1) the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
2) ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
3) the pope himself separately.

Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority...