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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Author Topic: OPEN LETTER to E. MIchael Jones in defense of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò  (Read 11531 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
Re: OPEN LETTER to E. MIchael Jones in defense of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2024, 03:54:45 PM »
Quote from: Striving4Holiness on November 02, 2024, 03:50:31 PM
Dogma is the matter of the proximate rule of faith; the form is the infallible teacher (Pope, council, etc) who proposes it for belief.  Without the infallible teacher (form) there is no matter (dogma) for belief.  I requires both.  The Pope/council is the form of the proximate rule of faith; the docrine infallibly proposed is the matter. 
What utter rubbish from yet another newbie throw-away account here.

Dogma is not a sacrament that requires matter, form, minister, and intent.

My compliments to Matthew that CathInfo has become important enough to be targeted by an unending tsunami of agitprop trolls.
Logged

Offline Striving4Holiness

Re: OPEN LETTER to E. MIchael Jones in defense of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2024, 04:01:35 PM »
Quote from: Mark 79 on November 02, 2024, 03:54:45 PM
What utter rubbish from yet another newbie throw-away account here.

Dogma is not a sacrament that requires matter, form, minister, and intent.

Why do you believe only sacraments have matter and form?  Man has matter and form, animals have matter and form, human acts have matter and form, statues have matter and form.

Although it was not your intention, your critical (form) statment (matter) revealed your ignorance. 


Quote
CathInfo has become important enough to be targeted by an unending tsunami of agitprop trolls.

Physician, heal thyself.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: OPEN LETTER to E. MIchael Jones in defense of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2024, 04:19:09 PM »
Striving4Holiness is correct on this point.  Form/Matter distinction applies to all types of situations (not merely Sacraments).

So, for instance, the Dogma of the Assumption was always materially a dogma, since they were all revealed from the beginning (before the death of the Last Apostle), but one did not become a formal heretic until it was defined by the Church's authority.

So, another way to make the distinction is that Dogma is the Remote Rule of Faith, whereas the Magisterium proposing it to us is the Proximate Rule of Faith.  St. Augustine famously stated that he would not believe Sacred Scripture had the Church's teaching authority not proposed it to him for belief.  Other Theologians refer to Scripture/Tradition as the "Proximate Inanimate" Rule of Faith, with the Magisterium being the "Proximate Animate" rule.

Bottom line is that what we must believe comes to us not directly from Scripture / Tradition, but from how the Church proposes them to us.  This R&R notion that Dogma is a Proximate Rule of Faith (that somehow trumps the Magisterium) is simply not Catholic.  It's essentially the same approach that Prots take to Scriptures, that the Scriptures are their Rule of Faith (and they don't need the Church and Magisterium to interpret it, since it stands alone) ... except that the Prots only accept one source of Revelation, not Two.
Logged

Offline drew

  • Supporter
Re: OPEN LETTER to E. MIchael Jones in defense of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2024, 04:59:43 PM »
Quote from: Striving4Holiness on November 02, 2024, 03:50:31 PM
Dogma is the matter of the proximate rule of faith; the form is the infallible teacher (Pope, council, etc) who proposes it for belief.  Without the infallible teacher (form) there is no matter (dogma) for belief.  I requires both.  The Pope/council is the form of the proximate rule of faith; the docrine infallibly proposed is the matter. 

This is a gross abuse of language. The "infallible teacher" is the means by which dogma is produced. Dogma is the ends. It is an abuse of language to refer to the means as the "form" and the ends as the "matter". Form and matter are philosophical terms to describe a substantial being and these terms have been incorporated into Catholic dogma. For example, it is a Catholic dogma that a man is composed of body and soul and that the soul is the substantial form of the man, the body is the matter. Whenever there is a dissolution of the form and matter, the being, in this case, the man, undergoes a substantial change. The form and matter of dogma can only refer to the truth defined and the words used in the definition.
 
This question was discussed in detail in the thread, Is Fr. Ringrose dumping the R&R crowd?:

https://www.cathinfo.com/SSPX-RESISTANCE-NEWS/IS-FATHER-RINGROSE-DUMPING-THE-R-R-CROWD/

My replies begin on page 4:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg598973/#msg598973
 
But as said above in a previous reply to Ladislaus, the truth that dogma constitutes the proximate rule of faith is evident in the definition of heresy. The best of all definitions, because it is the most intelligible, is the essential which provides the proximate genus and the essential difference. A heretic is a baptized Catholic who denies dogma. If you do not want to be a heretic you must keep dogma as your proximate rule of faith.
 
Also, I would recommend that you not enter this discussion if you have not read the OPEN LETTER.
 
Drew


Logged

Offline Striving4Holiness

Re: OPEN LETTER to E. MIchael Jones in defense of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2024, 05:44:59 PM »
Quote from: drew on November 02, 2024, 04:59:43 PM
This is a gross abuse of language. The "infallible teacher" is the means by which dogma is produced. Dogma is the ends. It is an abuse of language to refer to the means as the "form" and the ends as the "matter".

The infallible teacher not only "makes" the dogma - i.e., formulates the dogmatic proposition; it also infallibly proposes it to us for belief.  Those are two distinct acts. 

So, the infallible teacher is not only the means by which the dogma is "produced"; it is also the infallible teacher that proposes it to us for belief.  In the latter sense, the infallible teaching authority is the proximate motive for belief; the dogmatic proposition that it "made" is the matter to be believed.

The matter (dogma) is what we believe; the infallible teacher is why we believe it. 


Quote
But as said above in a previous reply to Ladislaus, the truth that dogma constitutes the proximate rule of faith is evident in the definition of heresy. The best of all definitions, because it is the most intelligible, is the essential which provides the proximate genus and the essential difference. A heretic is a baptized Catholic who denies dogma.

But how do we know what teachings are dogmas? That is, how do we know what propositions are revealed truths that requires the assent of Divine and Catholic Faith?  Answer: We know what propositions are dogmas, because the infallibly teacher told us. Without the infallible teacher, every person would be left on his own to determine what truths have been revealed by God.

I agree with you that dogmas are the matter of the proximate rule of faith (what is believed); but there is also no doubt that the infallible teacher is the formal aspect of the proximate rule of faith, since the infallible teaching authority is the proximate motive for belief.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
« previous next »