Author Topic: Not a theologian? (Read 2422 times)

Caminus · « **Reply #5 on:** November 06, 2011, 09:52:49 PM »

Please not in separate posts. Compose a single post fulfilling my request. I can see you've already drifted from the question, read it again and post accordingly.

Caminus · « **Reply #6 on:** November 06, 2011, 09:55:30 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

He said the Council didn't issue any solemn dogmas. That doesn't mean none of it was infallible. There is debate on that.

It's non-controversial that where the Council repeated Catholic doctrine that has always been taught it was infallible not by virtue of the exercise of authority, but by virtue of its sustained existence within the ordinary, universal magisterium. On the other hand, where one finds novelty, there is no question of infallibility, nor can there be a demand for religious asssent to subjectivism or when there appears to be error, corruption, defective teaching, etc. It's simply impossible for the intellect to assent due to several factors, not the least of which is total lack of certitude and falsifiable subjective propositions. Even the greatest defenders of the Council can't figure out what's "binding" within the various texts of the Council, yet you come along and tell Catholics, assent damn it or you will be a bad Catholic!

Caminus · « **Reply #7 on:** November 06, 2011, 09:59:45 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

A right to be free and protected in religious activity within the confines of the common good- Infallible

Eastern Church's are Church properly so-called -- Infallible

The rest of the doctrines seem to be simple elaborations of previous teachings, but the SSPX and company think there were other new doctrines as well

What makes you think those are infallible propositions?

Caminus · « **Reply #8 on:** November 06, 2011, 10:01:21 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: aquinasg
He said the Council didn't issue any solemn dogmas. That doesn't mean none of it was infallible. There is debate on that.

It's non-controversial that where the Council repeated Catholic doctrine that has always been taught it was infallible not by virtue of the exercise of authority, but by virtue of its sustained existence within the ordinary, universal magisterium. On the other hand, where one finds novelty, there is no question of infallibility, nor can their be a demand for religious asssent to subjectivism. It's simply impossible for the intellect.

You have no right as a lay person (non-theologian) to withdraw religious assent to doctrines which the Pope has bound on us. And Ordinary Universal Magisterium isn't merely the sustained existence of previous teachings. Read Shawn McElhinney's work on VII's authority off the internet. Interesting stuff

Yes, that is precisely what the "ordinary, universal magisterium" means. The persistent teaching extending in both time and place of any given doctrine. You haven't demonstrated any "doctrines" to which Vatican II has bound Catholics.

Caminus · « **Reply #9 on:** November 06, 2011, 10:10:20 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: aquinasg
Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: aquinasg
He said the Council didn't issue any solemn dogmas. That doesn't mean none of it was infallible. There is debate on that.

It's non-controversial that where the Council repeated Catholic doctrine that has always been taught it was infallible not by virtue of the exercise of authority, but by virtue of its sustained existence within the ordinary, universal magisterium. On the other hand, where one finds novelty, there is no question of infallibility, nor can their be a demand for religious asssent to subjectivism. It's simply impossible for the intellect.

You have no right as a lay person (non-theologian) to withdraw religious assent to doctrines which the Pope has bound on us. And Ordinary Universal Magisterium isn't merely the sustained existence of previous teachings. Read Shawn McElhinney's work on VII's authority off the internet. Interesting stuff

Yes, that is precisely what the "ordinary, universal magisterium" means. The persistent teaching extending in both time and place of any given doctrine. You haven't demonstrated any "doctrines" to which Vatican II has bound Catholics.

Ordinary Universal Magisterium can be exercised at a SINGLE time by the bishops with the Pope. It is different from a solemn definition only in the penalty for non-assent. John Paul II used OUM to define that there could not be women priests. The old Catholic Encyclopedia also speaks of OUM in this way

You don't "use" the ordinary, universal magisterium. It is simply the constant teaching of the Church, found in various organs of tradition. And to claim that the ordinary, universal magisterium "can be excerised at a single moment in time" (thus implying intrinsic infallibility) is tantamount to asserting an extraordinary act of the magsiterium, an inherent contradiction, or simply the confounding of two separate categories. Nothing is to be taken as infallible unless there are clear indications that any given doctrine was promulgated as such or has always been taught via tradition. This is a very simple concept to grasp.