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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 14

Author Topic: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI  (Read 12735 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #50 on: March 05, 2024, 09:51:13 AM »
Among the more dogmatic SVs, one of the most commonly misunderstood or misinterpreted notions is that of "internal religious assent", where it's conflated with the assent of faith.

Again, here's Msgr. Fenton:
Quote
Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. 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. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. 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 cannot be called certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term. The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, 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.” 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.

For most SVs, they conflate the internal assent with the strict philosophical meaning of the term assent.  It's internal because it cannot be mere lip-service, but what it amounts to is giving it every benefit of the doubt, assuming it's correct/true ... unless it be discovered to be erroneous.  It's not an absolute assent in the "strictest philosophical meaning of the term".
Logged

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #51 on: March 05, 2024, 09:58:36 AM »
Quote from: Crayolcold on March 05, 2024, 09:47:30 AM
Nobody cares about Fr. Cekada’s “lay pope.” Explain to us how NFP does not subordinate the primary end of marriage to the secondary end.

1. I won't be drawn into a debate with you on the subject. I'm simply not interested.

2. You completely miss the point. My point is that every "lay pope" thinks it's so simple, reduced to one angle, reduced to one aspect or point, that their mind sees as "100% crystal clear" and they proceed to push it on others as if it were dogma. And consequently, their opponents who go against this "dogma" are heretics, bad-willed, evil, etc.

That is why such debates by uneducated laymen is so problematic. Each side has a single argument they think is a slam-dunk, mic-drop, "case closed" -- but nevertheless, BOTH SIDES can earnestly and honestly argue about it forever, each convinced that he's right.

For Ladislaus, the "mic drop" argument for Sedevacantism is "A pope can't promulgate a noxious doctrine/Mass". But his opponents are usually focusing on ANOTHER point, which totally DIS-favors sedevacantism.

If you need guidance on this moral issue, see a Traditional Catholic priest. Don't waste your time with Joe Sixpack arguing on some forum from his armchair.
Logged

Offline Everlast22

  • Supporter
Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #52 on: March 05, 2024, 10:04:04 AM »
Quote from: Yeti on March 05, 2024, 09:49:30 AM
.

There's a third possibility, which is that you misunderstand Casti Connubii.

And consider this -- if Pope Pius XII contradicted Pope Pius XI on a matter of faith and morals in a public teaching to the whole Church, then the Church has failed.
Explain Casti Connubii for me, then. And the hierarchy has definitely failed. At least with this issue.
Logged

Offline Univocity

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #53 on: March 05, 2024, 10:13:25 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on March 05, 2024, 09:51:13 AM
Among the more dogmatic SVs, one of the most commonly misunderstood or misinterpreted notions is that of "internal religious assent", where it's conflated with the assent of faith.

Again, here's Msgr. Fenton:
For most SVs, they conflate the internal assent with the strict philosophical meaning of the term assent.  It's internal because it cannot be mere lip-service, but what it amounts to is giving it every benefit of the doubt, assuming it's correct/true ... unless it be discovered to be erroneous.  It's not an absolute assent in the "strictest philosophical meaning of the term".
Msgr Fenton indeed shows what "internal assent" means and shows that teachings subject to such assent can nonetheless prove incorrect.   I don't know of any sedevacantist clergy (laymen can be confused quite often) who would allege that one must give an assent of faith to these things.  Also no one that I know of is saying all teachings in the acta are infallible. The point is that while they can contain factually incorrect statements when not strictly falling within the category of infallible teaching, they nonetheless can never teach something sinful or dangerous.  Is it not your contention that applying Pope Pius XII's teaching on this matter would be sinful?  I leave aside here the point of whether he was addressing the Universal Church when seaking to the midwives.  It's inclusion in the acta, AFAIK, should render it "infallibly safe."
Logged

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #54 on: March 05, 2024, 10:25:16 AM »
Quote from: Everlast22 on March 05, 2024, 10:04:04 AM
Explain Casti Connubii for me, then. And the hierarchy has definitely failed. At least with this issue.
.

Pope Pius XII explained it to you already. Actually, you don't need it explained to you anyway; the pope doesn't owe you an explanation; he only must tell you what you must believe, and you must believe his teaching.

If you accept both Pius XI and Pius XII as true popes, then you cannot accept that one contradicted the other on a universal teaching of faith or morals. And you cannot say they failed, either, without denying the indefectibility of the Chuch.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 14
« previous next »