Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: drew on October 18, 2024, 01:27:32 PM
-
Posted below is a link to an OPEN LETTER to Dr. E. Michael Jones in reply to his public assertions regarding the "excommunication" Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò for the crime of schism and his challenge to the "Guild Prophets" to repent from having supported his actions to their followers. The purpose of the OPEN LETTER is to examine Dr. Jones' superficial understanding of the crime of schism, its imputability, and its relationship to the virtues of faith and charity for the end of correcting his errors as well as those of the "Guild Prophets". Dr. Jones does not know what constitutes the proximate rule of faith.
A copy of the OPEN LETTER has been sent to Dr. Jones inviting him to enter into a public written exchange of the contents of the LETTER. I am sure that Dr. Jones would prefer a live video debate format limited to one to two hours but such a format would be impossible to explore the problem in the depth it deserves because it takes a lot less time to make an error than it takes to correct it.
A copy of the LETTER was also sent to the "Guild Prophets".
http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Vigano_Defense%20of%20Archbishop%20Viganno_OPEN_LETTER_E_M_JONES.pdf (http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN LETTERS/Vigano_Defense of Archbishop Viganno_Culture_Wars.htm)
E. Michael Jones (https://x.com/EMichaelJones1)
@EMichaelJones1 (https://x.com/EMichaelJones1)
Archbishop Vigano has been excommunicated for the "crime of schism." Quo vadis, Taylor Marshall? Quo vadis, John-Henry Westen? Quo vadis, Michael Matt? Quo vadis, Robert Moynihan? Are you going to put your money where your mouth is and follow Vigano into schism? Or are you going to apologize for supporting him and leading your followers into the sin which got him excommunicated? Non datur tertius. Join me tonight at five at https://cozy.tv/emichaeljones (https://t.co/rkJZDNoWth) for my podcast discussing this.
3:08 PM · Jul 5, 2024 (https://x.com/EMichaelJones1/status/1809303404558143914)
AUDIO LINK:
EMJ Live 78: Archbishop Vigano Excommunicated - Culture Wars Podcast | Lyssna här | Poddtoppen.se (https://poddtoppen.se/podcast/1478993236/culture-wars-podcast/emj-live-78-archbishop-vigano-excommunicated)
Bullet Points:
1. Extra judicial process is an administrative action that cannot be used without the permission of the accused in any hearing where the juridic standing in the Church of the accused will be changed.
2. Excommunication changes the juridic standing in the Church.
3. All heretics are schismatics.
4. Since Vatican I, all schismatics are heretics.
5. There is only one act that manifests schism and that is manifest heresy.
6. Absent manifest heresy a canonical trial is necessary to establish a schismatic intent.
7. The essence of schism is denial of the universal jurisdiction of the pope.
8. Absent the existence of manifest heresy no Catholic can be accused of schism without the proof of denial universal jurisdiction of the pope.
9. Faith is related to heresy as Charity is related to schism.
10. Faith precedes charity. Without faith there is no charity therefore all heretics are schismatics.
11. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith for all the faithful.
12. E. Michael Jones is a Neo-modernist and makes the pope his proximate rule of faith and not dogma. This error leads to conservative Catholicism and Sedevacantism.
13. Archbishop Vigano's denial that Pope Francis is a legitimate pope is essentially different from the claims of sedevacantists and will become moot at the death of Pope Francis.
14. Pope Francis is a manifest heretic and therefore a schismatic.
15. Those that make Pope Francis their proximate rule of faith will follow him in schism and ultimate damnation.
http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Vigano_Defense%20of%20Archbishop%20Viganno_OPEN_LETTER_E_M_JONES.pdf (http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN LETTERS/Vigano_Defense of Archbishop Viganno_Culture_Wars.htm)
-
So strange about E Michael Jones. He seems so brilliant on the history of the Church, and the JQ, but he is strangely blinded by the NO and support for the abomination in the Vatican.
I heard that he is a bit autistic ( seriously) and this might explain why he has such blinders on when speaking about Vll and modernist Rome. Crazy
-
Hi Drew! Good to see you here again! I've only skimmed the letter but, what I saw looks great!
-
11. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith for all the faithful.
:facepalm: Not this crap again? It's completely false, and yet you persist in it.
-
4. Since Vatican I, all schismatics are heretics.
While this is true in practice (in every case I know about), it is theoretically still possible to be a schismatic without being a heretic. You can be in chronic disobedience to the Pope to an extent sufficient to constitute schism even while admitting his right in theory to command your obedience. So, for example, the SSPX very clearly border on it, where they claim "in theory" that the Pope has the authority to command our obedience, but then assert that they have the right to chronically disobey his teaching, and the universal discipline he establishes if they judge that they "know better".
-
So strange about E Michael Jones. He seems so brilliant on the history of the Church, and the JQ, but he is strangely blinded by the NO and support for the abomination in the Vatican.
I heard that he is a bit autistic ( seriously) and this might explain why he has such blinders on when speaking about Vll and modernist Rome. Crazy
I always wondered how his fb account could be up for so long without a bit of censure whereas low profile people get censored for fractions of what he has said on JQ. I hope I am wrong, but do personally thing he is the "gatekeeper."
He can go full 100% on JQ but when it comes to salvation of souls he keeps people in check confused and attached to the antichurch and false pope.
-
I always wondered how his fb account could be up for so long without a bit of censure whereas low profile people get censored for fractions of what he has said on JQ. I hope I am wrong, but do personally thing he is the "gatekeeper."
He can go full 100% on JQ but when it comes to salvation of souls he keeps people in check confused and attached to the antichurch and false pope.
The devil will tell you 99 truths to get you to believe one lie, if that lie will be your undoing.
Knowing about the JQ, the h0Ɩ0cαųst, the jab, are all important things. Jones speaks authoritatively about these subjects, which in turn gives him credibility on matters he is totally wrong about, such as Vatican II.
In other words, it won't do you much good to know about the money lenders if you remain stuck in the conciliar church.
-
:facepalm: Not this crap again? It's completely false, and yet you persist in it.
The definition of heresy is a baptized Catholic who denies dogma. The faithful are those who keep dogma as their rule of faith. The heretic denies dogma. This essential definition, which provides the genus and species difference, is the most intelligible of all definitions, yet, it is unintelligible to you.
I refer anyone who has any doubt that dogma is the proximate rule of faith for all faithful Catholics to read the CathInfo thread, Is Father Ringrose Dumping the R&R Crowd?:
https://www.cathinfo.com/SSPX-RESISTANCE-NEWS/IS-FATHER-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 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg598973/#msg598973)
The CathInfo thread now has over 235,000 views and although the thread had all of your posts deleted by the moderator, they can still be read in every reply I made to you because I included your posts in their entirety. There are many proofs offered that dogma is the proximate rule of faith drawn from authority citing Magisterial docuмents, Church fathers, and theologians. I have received many personal replies from Catholics who have benefited from this discussion.
What you need to remember is: All heretics are schismatics and since Vatican I, all schismatics are heretics. Any qualification you have to offer will be a waste of breath because you do not know the proximate rule of faith.
Drew
-
While this is true in practice (in every case I know about), it is theoretically still possible to be a schismatic without being a heretic. You can be in chronic disobedience to the Pope to an extent sufficient to constitute schism even while admitting his right in theory to command your obedience. So, for example, the SSPX very clearly border on it, where they claim "in theory" that the Pope has the authority to command our obedience, but then assert that they have the right to chronically disobey his teaching, and the universal discipline he establishes if they judge that they "know better".
Oh brother.
-
God is revealing the people you should avoid. Why waste time with Michael Jones? What we should be doing is talking to others about the true faith.
-
Quo vadis, Taylor Marshall? Quo vadis, John-Henry Westen? Quo vadis, Michael Matt? Quo vadis, Robert Moynihan? Are you going to put your money where your mouth is and follow Vigano into schism? Or are you going to apologize for supporting him and leading your followers into the sin which got him excommunicated?
But did these people actually support him? If they did, I thought they only did so until it was clear Vigano didn't believe Bergoglio was the pope.
-
Where are we going?
-
God is revealing the people you should avoid. Why waste time with Michael Jones? What we should be doing is talking to others about the true faith.
Maybe you should explain why efforts to convert E. Michael Jones is a "waste (of) time"? Has God revealed this to you? Instructing the ignorant is a spiritual work of mercy that all Catholics are obligated when possible. What is evident is that you have not read the OPEN LETTER and I think it is inadvisable to enter a discussion that you have not made a preliminary examination.
The OPEN LETTER has been sent Dr. Jones and to the those that Dr. Jones identifies as the "Guild Prophets", that is, to Dr. Robert Moynihan, editor of Inside the Vatican, Dr. Taylor Marshall, a professional apologist, John-Henry Westen, editor of Life Site News, and lastly, Michael Matt, editor of the Remnant Newspaper. The four are conservative Catholics with traditional sentiments. They were accused by Dr. Jones of shamelessly defending Archbishop Viganò and leading their followers into schism. He has challenged them to publicly repudiate Archbishop Viganò and call upon their followers to do the same. Jones asks them if they are with Pope Francis in the Church or with Archbishop Viganò outside the Church. He reminds them that there is no salvation outside the Church.
Dr. Jones and the Guild Prophets share a common error: they hold the pope as their proximate rule of faith. They believe that the pope is the primary and essential cause and sign of unity in the Church. This is a grave error. My hope is that Dr. Jones will enter this exchange with the Guild Prophets for the purpose of bringing those in error back to truth.
In an ongoing and open defense of the Catholic faith in the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg, I and members of Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission have been accused by the last five bishops of being schismatic. We have repeatedly asked the bishops to make formal canonical charges that permit an open and public defense. Lacking that, that they at least engaged themselves or their appointed representatives to enter a public written debate on the question. This has been going on for nearly 25 years and we have heard nothing in reply other than the repeated calumny of schism. I am happy to say that the majority of our members have been converted from the Novus Ordo by our public letters to hαɾɾιsburg and to Rome.
Dr. Jones professes to be an expert on the question of schism. I know that he is ignorant on the matter and his ignorance is long standing. The Guild Prophets are challenged by Dr. Jones to remain in the conservative Catholic fold or become sedecavantists. It is an utterly false option.
Lastly, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò deserves to be defended against his detractors. The Guild Prophets are at the crossroads and they need encouragement to defend the Catholic faith.
Drew
-
The following note was sent to E. Michael Jones:
E. Michael Jones
Although I have forgotten the exact citation, I believe that it was Fr. Dennis Fahey who said that the power of the Jews is directly reciprocal to the strength of the faith in the Church. Since Vatican II the power of the Jews has increased geometrically, maybe even exponentially, particularly in the sense that it has moved out from the shadows into the open forum and does not fear opposition because it has converted the multitude. You, the author of The Jєωιѕн Revolutionary Spirit, can recognize this but do not understand why this is so.
My OPEN LETTER is an attempt to answer this for your benefit. The OPEN LETTER claims that you do not know the essence of schism because you do not know the faith, and in not knowing the faith, you do not understand the real reason for the ascendancy of the Jews. You can describe this Jєωιѕн power but you cannot combat it without knowing and defending the faith.
The OPEN LETTER has been sent to you and to the Guild Prophets about six weeks ago. It was then posted on CathInfo blog forum two weeks ago when you and the Guild Prophets were invited to enter a public discussion addressing your public challenge. So far, no takers.
I am again inviting you to address the OPEN LETTER for the end of bring those in error back to Catholic truth.
OPEN LETTER Link:
http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Vigano_Defense%20of%20Archbishop%20Viganno_OPEN_LETTER_E_M_JONES.pdf
CathInfo Link:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/open-letter-to-e-michael-jones-in-defense-of-archbishop-carlo-maria-vigano/
David Drew
York, PA
-
11. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith for all the faithful.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
CathInfo has become important enough to be targeted by an unending tsunami of agitprop trolls.
Physician, heal thyself.
-
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.
-
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/ (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 (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
-
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.
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.
-
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.
In addition to what I wrote previously, another point confirming that the infallible teaching authority is the formal aspect of the proximate rule of faith - and proximate motive for belief - is the fact that heresy is directly opposed to the infallibility authority of the Church as teacher and only mediately, or indirectly, opposed the dogmas that are proposed for belief, and against the First Truth (God) the Revealer. Billuart explains:
"Pertinacious heresy, therefore, is immediately and directly opposed to the infallible authority that the Church enjoys in proposing revealed truths (an authority that they can and ought to acknowledge, but which they pertinaciously deny); and, because the Church infallibly proposes truths revealed by God, heresy is mediately and indirectly opposed to these truths, and consequently to revelation itself, and finally to the First Truth who is the source of revelation." (Summa s. Thomae of Charles-Rene Billuart, (1685-1757), Secunda Secundae, 4th Dissertation: On the Vices Opposed to Faith, A. 1.)
-
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.
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.
St. Thomas says that the existence of God is not self-evident but it becomes self-evident once the terms of the definition are known. An essential definition does the same thing: when the terms are know the meaning is self-evident. That is why the definition of heresy makes the truth that dogma constitutes the proximate rule of faith self-evident. That is why an essential definition is the most intelligible of all definitions.
Still there are people who know the terms and deny the existence of God. What are we to attribute their blindness? Malice? Stupidity? Sloth? Take your pick.
You have not read the OPEN LETTER and yet you have entered a discussion on a question that you have not informed yourself. And I do not think you have any intention of informing yourself for you, like Ladislaus, apparently know everything.
You were advised, if you doubted that dogma constitutes the proximate rule of faith, to read the thread: Is Fr. Ringrose dumping the R&R crowd? If you had read it you would not have repeated almost verbatim the same error of Ladislaus when you said:
Striving4Holiness said:
"The matter (dogma) is what we believe; the infallible teacher (the form?) is why we believe it."
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600102/#msg600102
This remark goes beyond a corruption of the terms form and matter and the inability to distinguish means from ends. It attacks the faith in its necessary attributes. If you read just this one post replying to Ladislaus you will see what a colossal corruption of the faith you have made.
The purpose of this thread is to invite E. Michael Jones to publicly reply to the charge that his understanding of schism is erroneous because his understanding of the faith is erroneous. This purpose of this thread is not to explain to you what is self-evident because you will not make the effort to inform yourself on fundamental definitions before posting.
Drew
-
Yes, two people just independently (without knowing each other or what the other had written) made the same "colossal" mistake, a corruption of the faith ... strange.
No, Drew, you're the one corrupting faith and promoting the same error (heresy) as the Protestants ... the only difference between you and the Prots being that the Prots recognize only one source of dogma (Sacred Scripture) while you recognize two (Sacred Scripture and Tradition). Otherwise, your thesis is identical to theirs, and is simply not Catholic.
Another perspective on the distinction would be that between quoad se and quoad nos, where something might be dogma quoad se but does not become dogma quoad nos until it's proposed as such by the Church's infallible teaching authority.
Then of course, as I've pointed out, and all Catholic theologians admit, there's the content of dogma, i.e. WHAT is believed, vs. WHY it's believed. St. Thomas clearly teaches the distinction, namely, that natural truths are believed on their own merits, whereas supernatural truths can only be believed based on the authority of the One Revealing them, and it's a combined act of intellect and will, the latter being drawn by the intellectual motives of credibility into a submission of the will to that authority. But supernatural truths are simply not knowable on their own or intrinsically. Vatican I made that definition quite clear.
Here's another way to look at it. So, we believe dogma due to the authority of God revealing. But how do we know that it was God who revealed these things? Did God come down and tell us that it was He behind Sacred Scripture and Tradition? Of course not. We accepted it based upon the testimony of the Church, those whom He sent to communicate this to us. If we didn't believe in and accept their testimony, who know? ... they could have made the whole thing up, just like Mohammed made up his fake religion. Just as it's absurd to believe, as the Prots do, that somehow God plopped the Bible down onto earth from heaven in the same way he wrote on the stone tables for Moses (and even then we have to take Moses' word for it, and believe that he didn't just carve those up himself during his prolonged stay alone up there and pretend that God did it). Similarly, God didn't just plop "Tradition" down, along with the Bible. And, just as the Prots decided that the Bible did not require any authoritative interpretation (since it was their "rule of faith") ... leading to there being currently over 23,000 different Prot denominations with varying interpretations of said Bible, it's precisely the same grave error and "corruption of faith" to assert the same thing of Tradition, that it requires no interpretation. Long before the Prots came along, when people still believed in Tradition, there were myriad heresies from the very beginnings of the Church, from people who claimed a different interpretation of Bible and Tradition. How does one discern the correct interpretation and the false one? Obviously by relying upon the authority of the Church.
-
Another perspective on the distinction would be that between quoad se and quoad nos, where something might be dogma quoad se but does not become dogma quoad nos until it's proposed as such by the Church's infallible teaching authority.
Excellent point. Every revealed truth is a dogma quoad se (in itself), or a "material dogma". When the Church formulates the dogma and infallibly proposes it for belief, it become a dogma quoad nos (according to us), or a formal dogma.
If Drew knew metaphysics he would realize that when he says dogmas are the proximate rule of faith, what he means is they are the matter of the proximate rule; that is, they are the material object of belief, and he is right. But the proximate formal object, or proximate motive of belief in the dogma, is the infallibility of the divinely constituted teacher of revealed truth. Since dogma a quoad se becomes a dogma quoad nos when the Church (Pope or council) proposes it for believe, the Church is said to be the proximate rule of faith. But what that really means is that the Church is the formal aspect of the proximate rule of faith, since it is she that conditions belief by proposing it for belief.
-
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.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
-
Yes, two people just independently (without knowing each other or what the other had written) made the same "colossal" mistake, a corruption of the faith ... strange.
No, Drew, you're the one corrupting faith and promoting the same error (heresy) as the Protestants ... the only difference between you and the Prots being that the Prots recognize only one source of dogma (Sacred Scripture) while you recognize two (Sacred Scripture and Tradition). Otherwise, your thesis is identical to theirs, and is simply not Catholic.
Another perspective on the distinction would be that between quoad se and quoad nos, where something might be dogma quoad se but does not become dogma quoad nos until it's proposed as such by the Church's infallible teaching authority.
Then of course, as I've pointed out, and all Catholic theologians admit, there's the content of dogma, i.e. WHAT is believed, vs. WHY it's believed. St. Thomas clearly teaches the distinction, namely, that natural truths are believed on their own merits, whereas supernatural truths can only be believed based on the authority of the One Revealing them, and it's a combined act of intellect and will, the latter being drawn by the intellectual motives of credibility into a submission of the will to that authority. But supernatural truths are simply not knowable on their own or intrinsically. Vatican I made that definition quite clear.
Here's another way to look at it. So, we believe dogma due to the authority of God revealing. But how do we know that it was God who revealed these things? Did God come down and tell us that it was He behind Sacred Scripture and Tradition? Of course not. We accepted it based upon the testimony of the Church, those whom He sent to communicate this to us. If we didn't believe in and accept their testimony, who know? ... they could have made the whole thing up, just like Mohammed made up his fake religion. Just as it's absurd to believe, as the Prots do, that somehow God plopped the Bible down onto earth from heaven in the same way he wrote on the stone tables for Moses (and even then we have to take Moses' word for it, and believe that he didn't just carve those up himself during his prolonged stay alone up there and pretend that God did it). Similarly, God didn't just plop "Tradition" down, along with the Bible. And, just as the Prots decided that the Bible did not require any authoritative interpretation (since it was their "rule of faith") ... leading to there being currently over 23,000 different Prot denominations with varying interpretations of said Bible, it's precisely the same grave error and "corruption of faith" to assert the same thing of Tradition, that it requires no interpretation. Long before the Prots came along, when people still believed in Tradition, there were myriad heresies from the very beginnings of the Church, from people who claimed a different interpretation of Bible and Tradition. How does one discern the correct interpretation and the false one? Obviously by relying upon the authority of the Church.
Ladislaus,
You have a long track record of posting gross errors and then, rather than correcting them, trying to cover your tracks by "esoteric" qualifications that muddle the issue and often lead to bigger errors. You routinely post without having read or reflected on the question at hand which is evidence of sloth and offer "authoritative" opinions ground on thin air. You are doing the same thing with this current thread. So I will freely link your previous posts as I clean up your mess.
Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896416/#msg896416)
« Reply #105 on: July 28, 2023, 03:14:09 PM
Protestants believe that the remote rule of faith is scripture alone and the proximate rule of faith is the individual believer. Protestants reject that the Magisterium of the Church is intrinsic to the faith, that is, of divine revelation. In fact it is one of the fundamental doctrines uniting all Protestants. I affirm that the remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition and the proximate rule of faith is dogma. Since the instrumental and material cause of dogma is the Magisterium that Protestants reject, it is not possible to be a Protestant. What you have said is calumny because you cannot produce a single post from me calling into question that the Magisterium of the Church is of divine revelation. Besides being calumny, it is an ignorant accusation.
But on the other hand, I can produce posts from you denying that the Magisterium is intrinsic to the faith, that is, part of divine revelation. Here are links to posts where you made the colossal error that the "magisterium of the Church IS NOT part of divine revelation" but, as you said, it is "formally distinct." The posts also contain Magisterial statements referring to dogma as the rule of faith.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600637/#msg600637)
« Reply #146 on: March 20, 2018, 10:11:04 PM
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600499/#msg600499)
« Reply #141 on: March 20, 2018, 07:22:26 AM »
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601165/#msg601165)
« Reply #182 on: March 23, 2018, 08:59:53 PM
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601584/#msg601584)
« Reply #236 on: March 26, 2018, 09:37:49 PM
And lastly, a link to a post the docuмents multiple errors providing specific citations:
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601723/#msg601723)
« Reply #251 on: March 27, 2018, 07:12:01 PM
It is good that you have in some measure corrected your error that corrupted the virtue of faith by distinguishing a difference between what we believe and why we believe it. But for clarity, there is no such thing as "WHAT is believed vs. WHY it's believed" and it has nothing to do with the distinction between natural truths and divinely revealed truths. Here is a link previously correcting your error on this question.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601097/#msg601097)
« Reply #175 on: March 23, 2018, 02:13:52 PM
The entire thread, Is Fr. Ringrose dumping the R&R crowd?, has an interesting history. The thread extended to 174 pages when it was locked by the Moderator who then deleted all your posts and Cantarella's posts which reduced the thread to 76 pages. Nearly 100 pages attributed to you and Cantarella alone were considered not worth retaining! Your posts and Cantarella's were not lost entirely because when replying I always quoted your entire posts so that there would be no question of taking you out of context. The thread has been read nearly 240,000 times. The reading have increased. It has been read over 70,000 times in the last 15 months. I have been contacted many times by those who appreciate the clarity brought to confusing questions.
You claim that the magisterium is your proximate rule of faith but you constantly use the term equivocally. But this is just another obfuscation. The pope holds the keys to the magisterium, so no matter how you understand the term, the pope is therefore your proximate rule of faith. You confuse always means and ends. The end of a Magisterial act is dogma. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. This truth is established by quotations provided by Church fathers, Councils and theologians in the Ringrose thread but that made no impression on you. Let's explain once again why the definition of heresy makes this necessarily so and what the implications of this means to you.
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas." The genus of both faith and heresy is the deposit of faith by those who "professed the faith of Christ." The species difference it that the heretic "corrupts" dogma and the faithful do not. This is an essential definition. Essential definitions are the most intelligible of all definitions for a specific reason.
In a previous post I cited St. Thomas who teaches that the existence of God IS NOT self-evident necessarily. Once the terms of the definition are understood regarding the existence of God, then, the existence of God is not just evident, but becomes a self-evident necessary truth. Vatican I dogmatized that the existence of God can be known with certainty from created things. This means that the terms are themselves evident that must be understood to provide an essential definition that God exists. This is what essential definitions do. When the terms of the proposition are understood, the truth becomes self-evident. Yet, there are many who claim to be atheists. They reject the definition of the terms.
To deny that dogma is the proximate rule of faith requires the rejection of the terms of the definition of heresy as the rejection of dogma. It begins with denying dogma in its essence which is the heresy of Modernism, as well as Neo-modernism. There can only be a distinction between dogma quoad se and dogma quoad nos by someone who corrupts the definition of dogma. But, corruption of definitions is your forte. Dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Magisterium of the Church and proposed to all the faithful as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. So how is it possible that dogma could be "quoad se" because there is no self-referential subjective quality to dogma? Neo-modernism as heresy says exactly the opposite. It claims that dogma is formally divine and materially human. It claims that the material human element must undergo perpetual refinement by the magisterium to better approximate the divine truth. It denies that there is anything definitive with dogma and consequently one must constantly ask the magisterium what dogma currently means today. They hold the magisterium as the proximate rule of faith, that is, the pope, and look to him to determine what now is to be held as a formal object of faith. You in fact accuse me of being a "Protestant" because I take dogma literally, because I DO NOT return to the current pope and ask for a magisterial judgment of what a specific dogma means today. I DO NOT ask for a magisterial judgment regarding what we are currently to believe regarding Catholic truths such as the True Presence, the Assumption, the Resurrection, etc., etc. You believe in the evolution of dogma and therefore it cannot possibly be the proximate rule of faith. And in this you corrupt dogma in its essence. That is why the essential definition is unintelligible to you. That is why you cannot "see" the self-evident truth. It is the same reason that atheists cannot "see" that God necessarily exists.
It is in fact a diagnosis of a terminal condition.
Drew
-
Ladislaus,
You have a long track record of posting gross errors and then, rather than correcting them, trying to cover your tracks by "esoteric" qualifications that muddle the issue and often lead to bigger errors. You routinely post without having read or reflected on the question at hand which is evidence of sloth and offer "authoritative" opinions ground on thin air. You are doing the same thing with this current thread. So I will freely link your previous posts as I clean up your mess.
Re: Why SSPX Cannot Defend Catholic Tradition - Bakery & Wine Cellar Consecrations (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/why-sspx-cannot-defend-catholic-tradition-bakery-wine-cellar-consecrations/msg896416/#msg896416)
« Reply #105 on: July 28, 2023, 03:14:09 PM
Protestants believe that the remote rule of faith is scripture alone and the proximate rule of faith is the individual believer. Protestants reject that the Magisterium of the Church is intrinsic to the faith, that is, of divine revelation. In fact it is one of the fundamental doctrines uniting all Protestants. I affirm that the remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition and the proximate rule of faith is dogma. Since the instrumental and material cause of dogma is the Magisterium that Protestants reject, it is not possible to be a Protestant. What you have said is calumny because you cannot produce a single post from me calling into question that the Magisterium of the Church is of divine revelation. Besides being calumny, it is an ignorant accusation.
But on the other hand, I can produce posts from you denying that the Magisterium is intrinsic to the faith, that is, part of divine revelation. Here are links to posts where you made the colossal error that the "magisterium of the Church IS NOT part of divine revelation" but, as you said, it is "formally distinct." The posts also contain Magisterial statements referring to dogma as the rule of faith.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600637/#msg600637)
« Reply #146 on: March 20, 2018, 10:11:04 PM
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg600499/#msg600499)
« Reply #141 on: March 20, 2018, 07:22:26 AM »
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601165/#msg601165)
« Reply #182 on: March 23, 2018, 08:59:53 PM
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601584/#msg601584)
« Reply #236 on: March 26, 2018, 09:37:49 PM
And lastly, a link to a post the docuмents multiple errors providing specific citations:
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601723/#msg601723)
« Reply #251 on: March 27, 2018, 07:12:01 PM
It is good that you have in some measure corrected your error that corrupted the virtue of faith by distinguishing a difference between what we believe and why we believe it. But for clarity, there is no such thing as "WHAT is believed vs. WHY it's believed" and it has nothing to do with the distinction between natural truths and divinely revealed truths. Here is a link previously correcting your error on this question.
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg601097/#msg601097)
« Reply #175 on: March 23, 2018, 02:13:52 PM
The entire thread, Is Fr. Ringrose dumping the R&R crowd?, has an interesting history. The thread extended to 174 pages when it was locked by the Moderator who then deleted all your posts and Cantarella's posts which reduced the thread to 76 pages. Nearly 100 pages attributed to you and Cantarella alone were considered not worth retaining! Your posts and Cantarella's were not lost entirely because when replying I always quoted your entire posts so that there would be no question of taking you out of context. The thread has been read nearly 240,000 times. The reading have increased. It has been read over 70,000 times in the last 15 months. I have been contacted many times by those who appreciate the clarity brought to confusing questions.
You claim that the magisterium is your proximate rule of faith but you constantly use the term equivocally. But this is just another obfuscation. The pope holds the keys to the magisterium, so no matter how you understand the term, the pope is therefore your proximate rule of faith. You confuse always means and ends. The end of a Magisterial act is dogma. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. This truth is established by quotations provided by Church fathers, Councils and theologians in the Ringrose thread but that made no impression on you. Let's explain once again why the definition of heresy makes this necessarily so and what the implications of this means to you.
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas." The genus of both faith and heresy is the deposit of faith by those who "professed the faith of Christ." The species difference it that the heretic "corrupts" dogma and the faithful do not. This is an essential definition. Essential definitions are the most intelligible of all definitions for a specific reason.
In a previous post I cited St. Thomas who teaches that the existence of God IS NOT self-evident necessarily. Once the terms of the definition are understood regarding the existence of God, then, the existence of God is not just evident, but becomes a self-evident necessary truth. Vatican I dogmatized that the existence of God can be known with certainty from created things. This means that the terms are themselves evident that must be understood to provide an essential definition that God exists. This is what essential definitions do. When the terms of the proposition are understood, the truth becomes self-evident. Yet, there are many who claim to be atheists. They reject the definition of the terms.
To deny that dogma is the proximate rule of faith requires the rejection of the terms of the definition of heresy as the rejection of dogma. It begins with denying dogma in its essence which is the heresy of Modernism, as well as Neo-modernism. There can only be a distinction between dogma quoad se and dogma quoad nos by someone who corrupts the definition of dogma. But, corruption of definitions is your forte. Dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Magisterium of the Church and proposed to all the faithful as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. So how is it possible that dogma could be "quoad se" because there is no self-referential subjective quality to dogma? Neo-modernism as heresy says exactly the opposite. It claims that dogma is formally divine and materially human. It claims that the material human element must undergo perpetual refinement by the magisterium to better approximate the divine truth. It denies that there is anything definitive with dogma and consequently one must constantly ask the magisterium what dogma currently means today. They hold the magisterium as the proximate rule of faith, that is, the pope, and look to him to determine what now is to be held as a formal object of faith. You in fact accuse me of being a "Protestant" because I take dogma literally, because I DO NOT return to the current pope and ask for a magisterial judgment of what a specific dogma means today. I DO NOT ask for a magisterial judgment regarding what we are currently to believe regarding Catholic truths such as the True Presence, the Assumption, the Resurrection, etc., etc. You believe in the evolution of dogma and therefore it cannot possibly be the proximate rule of faith. And in this you corrupt dogma in its essence. That is why the essential definition is unintelligible to you. That is why you cannot "see" the self-evident truth. It is the same reason that atheists cannot "see" that God necessarily exists.
It is in fact a diagnosis of a terminal condition.
Drew
CORRECTION:
There is an error that needs correction and clarification in the above quoted post.
St. Thomas says that the existence of God IS NOT self-evident. The truth that God exists is deduced necessarily from the First Principles of the Understanding on which the proofs for the existence of God offered by St. Thomas rest. It is the First Principles of the Understanding that constitute self-evident truths from which the existence of God necessarily follows. These proofs are not an essential definition because for God, and for individuals within any given species, there can be no essential definition because there is no genus and species difference. The First Principles of the Understanding are self-evident truths and are not subject to proof themselves but form the bedrock on which all proof rests. Although they cannot be proven, they are demonstrable.
Essential definitions are analogous to this in that once the genus and species difference are known the thing defined becomes self-evident.
In reply #21 what I said is correct that an essential definition is analogous to the self-evident truth that God exists when the definitions are known :
"St. Thomas says that the existence of God is not self-evident but it becomes self-evident once the terms of the definition are known. An essential definition does the same thing: when the terms are know the meaning is self-evident. That is why the definition of heresy makes the truth that dogma constitutes the proximate rule of faith self-evident. That is why an essential definition is the most intelligible of all definitions."
In reply #25 what I said is incorrect:
"In a previous post I cited St. Thomas who teaches that the existence of God IS NOT self-evident necessarily. Once the terms of the definition are understood regarding the existence of God, then, the existence of God is not just evident, but becomes a self-evident necessary truth. Vatican I dogmatized that the existence of God can be known with certainty from created things. This means that the terms are themselves evident that must be understood to provide an essential definition that God exists. This is what essential definitions do. When the terms of the proposition are understood, the truth becomes self-evident. Yet, there are many who claim to be atheists. They reject the definition of the terms"
The bold should say, ".... to provide the proofs that God exists" and not say "to provide an essential definition that God exists."
I apologize for the careless error.
Drew
-
Yes. Please defend Archbishop Vigano.
Remember during Covid, he was quick to give out letters of religious exemptions.
Did any other clergy offer letters? Who?