Author Topic: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book (Read 4235 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #75 on:** October 03, 2018, 08:16:47 AM »

Quote

Give me an example of a non-infallible teaching, or a non-infallible magisterial act that we must believe under pain of sin. ?

If you can answer this question with a good example, then you're right, my arguments are wrong. If you can't answer this question, then my points remain.

Cantarella · « **Reply #76 on:** October 03, 2018, 12:15:22 PM »

Quote

'De fide'/Doctrinal teachings must be believed under penalty of heresy (which is a sin). Non-de fide teachings are binding to the extent that the Church tells us the level of teaching authority. Each level of teaching authority has different levels of assent (and consequent penalties) associated with it.

Applying theological levels of Magisterial teaching, "Amoris Laetitia" belongs to the Authentic Magisterium. Such teachings are to be received with a "religious submission of the intellect and will".

This type of religious assent does not mean rejection or doubt. Far from.

If Bergoglio is Pope, then you need to be receiving the teachings of "Amoris Laetitia" with the "religious submission of intellect and will" that Catholics owe to the Authentic Magisterium of the Church. That means you assent, you do not reject.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #77 on:** October 03, 2018, 01:04:41 PM »

Cantarella, i'll ask you as well:
Give me an example of a non-infallible teaching, or a non-infallible magisterial act that we must believe under pain of sin?

Quote

"Amoris Laetitia" belongs to the Authentic Magisterium. Such teachings are to be received with a "religious submission of the intellect and will".

This type of religious assent does not mean rejection or doubt. Far from.

Religious submission is conditional. We are allowed to ask questions, and ask for clarifications (which Cardinals have done and the pope has yet to answer). It's the same level of assent required for V2. In other words, it binds us to nothing of consequence. Just more modernist word games.

Stubborn · « **Reply #78 on:** October 03, 2018, 02:01:24 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on October 03, 2018, 12:15:22 PM

Applying theological levels of Magisterial teaching, "Amoris Laetitia" belongs to the Authentic Magisterium. Such teachings are to be received with a "religious submission of the intellect and will".

This type of religious assent does not mean rejection or doubt. Far from.

If Bergoglio is Pope, then you need to be receiving the teachings of "Amoris Laetitia" with the "religious submission of intellect and will" that Catholics owe to the Authentic Magisterium of the Church. That means you assent, you do not reject.

Sorry Cantarella but this ^^^^ is ridiculous.

Whatever you think the "Authentic Magisterium" even means, Amoris Laetitia, being riddled with error, belongs to the pope and in no way does even a minuscule part of it belong to the Church's magisterium. Because it is riddled with heresy and error, *that* is the reason why we owe zero ascent to it, and this is true without regard to the authority of it's author.

If sede's could get themselves to stop concerning themselves with the status of the pope, they would more easily stop the consistent confusion, inherent in sedeism, between truth or doctrine and the requirement of authority.

Cantarella · « **Reply #79 on:** October 03, 2018, 02:35:22 PM »

Quote

Cantarella, i'll ask you as well:
Give me an example of a non-infallible teaching, or a non-infallible magisterial act that we must believe under pain of sin?

Teachings against birth control, for instance. Do you know if the Church has ever issued an infallible statement on the prohibition of birth control methods?

If you disagree with the Church on this point, what dogma of the Faith will you be denying?

Catholics are bound to hear the Church (most especially the Vicar of Christ on earth); not only in Articles of Faith but also in morals and temporary discipline.

Cantarella · « **Reply #80 on:** October 03, 2018, 02:46:20 PM »

Quote

Religious submission is conditional. We are allowed to ask questions, and ask for clarifications (which Cardinals have done and the pope has yet to answer). It's the same level of assent required for V2. In other words, it binds us to nothing of consequence. Just more modernist word games.

I agree that those are more modernist word games emanating from Vatican II. See Lumen Gentium for an explanation of what this "Religious Assent" even means. Ratzinger wrote about it as well.

It's is you who keep bringing the theological levels of Magisterial teaching. It used to be that Catholics simply believed that the Pope of Rome is the true representative of Christ on earth and as such was heard.

Stubborn · « **Reply #81 on:** October 03, 2018, 03:07:03 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on October 03, 2018, 02:46:20 PM

I agree that those are more modernist word games emanating from Vatican II. See Lumen Gentium for an explanation of what this "Religious Assent" even means. Ratzinger wrote about it as well.

It's is you who keep bringing the theological levels of Magisterial teaching. It used to be that Catholics simply believed that the Pope of Rome is the true representative of Christ on earth and as such was heard.

If this crisis has taught trads anything, it's that we cannot leave our brains at the door and blindly do whatever priests, bishops - or the pope tells us. Those who think that's the way we Catholics are bound to live our religious lives, are wrongfully invoking authority just to get by, and to avoid the whole issue of their own personal belief, foolishly acting as if blind obedience is a dogma of the Church. This is why most people are now in heresy within the Church, because in the name of [false] obedience, they left their brains at the door - of their own free will.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #82 on:** October 03, 2018, 03:39:32 PM »

Quote

I agree that those are more modernist word games emanating from Vatican II. See Lumen Gentium for an explanation of what this "Religious Assent" even means. Ratzinger wrote about it as well.

It's is you who keep bringing the theological levels of Magisterial teaching. It used to be that Catholics simply believed that the Pope of Rome is the true representative of Christ on earth and as such was heard.

Here's the point. You are using pre-V2 logic and the pre-V2 understanding of the magisterium and trying to apply it to V2 and post-V2 magisterial acts. This is like comparing apples to oranges. The modernists changed the definition of what the magisterium does and it's authority, as evidenced by their invention of the novelty called "religious submission". Pre-V2 this term didn't exist. So, you have to admit that V2's level of teaching authority is NOT comparable to any other ecuмenical council.

When Ladislaus says (and you agree as well that): Vatican II obviously engaged the Apostolic teaching authority.

No, V2 absolutely did NOT. And the V2 officials have said it didn't, and they invented a new term to explain why it didn't. If Paul VI had engaged his apostolic authority, then why the need to invent a new term? Why not say that the council was infallible, like all the others? If V2 had the same teaching authority as all other ecuмenical councils, then why aren't all Trads schismatic and excommunicated for not accepting it? This would be the legal consequences if the weight of authority is as you say. But it's not and you have no explanation as to why not.

Beaumont · « **Reply #83 on:** October 15, 2018, 02:41:41 PM »

Quote

..Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanta Cura, n. 5)

Quote

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circuмstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, nn. 103-104)

Quote

What good is it to proclaim aloud the dogma of the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors? What good is it to repeat over and over declarations of faith in the Catholic Church and of obedience to the Apostolic See when actions give the lie to these fine words? Moreover, is not rebellion rendered all the more inexcusable by the fact that obedience is recognized as a duty? Again, does not the authority of the Holy See extend, as a sanction, to the measures which We have been obliged to take, or is it enough to be in communion of faith with this See without adding the submission of obedience, — a thing which cannot be maintained without damaging the Catholic Faith?
…In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema.
(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quae in Patriarchatu [Sept. 1, 1876], nn. 23-24; in Acta Sanctae Sedis X [1877], pp. 3-37; English taken from , nn. 433-434; underlining added.)

Stubborn · « **Reply #84 on:** October 15, 2018, 03:08:03 PM »

Quote

..Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanta Cura, n. 5)

Those quotes does not apply, for the simple reason that "those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See" not only do "not touch the dogmata of faith and morals", they in fact contradict past judgements and decrees, and are obviously destructive to the faith and Church. The audacity is on the part of the scandalmongers and *not* those who, without sin and *with* the sacrifice of the Catholic profession, demonstrate that assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees which, per all the past judgements, teachings and decrees, are anti-Catholic.

Beaumont · « **Reply #85 on:** October 15, 2018, 03:47:24 PM »

I guess the question is, how can a true pope teach decree and judge anti-Catholic teachings which, per Catholic doctrine, must be submitted to with intellect and will? The traditional teaching is that teaching from a pope must be presumed to be true and even if learned theologians have objections they must still exteriorly assent to the teaching and ask clarifying questions or raise objections privately to the pope. Unless you are a learned theologian you are bound to submit per the teaching authority of the Church. This is not because the teaching is per se infallible, but because the pope has the authority to teach. Although there is a chance this teaching could contain a minor error not afecting salvation, it could never contain heresy or else the Church would be requiring its faithful to damn themselves which is absurd.

If we try to minimize the obligations the faithful have towards papal teaching then we start gutting all papal teaching of its importance. We then start to become our own rule of Faith whereby we sift what each pope says to see if it agrees with Tradition. But that defeats the entire purpose of having a pope in the first place. The purpose of a pope is having someone designated by God to be a sure guide to teach you the Faith on His behalf. The entire point of the papacy and teaching Church is that we are not left in the dark to our own judgments.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #86 on:** October 15, 2018, 04:22:43 PM »

Quote

The purpose of a pope is having someone designated by God to be a sure guide to teach you the Faith on His behalf. The entire point of the papacy and teaching Church is that we are not left in the dark to our own judgments.

In my opinion, God would've never allowed our current crisis in the first 1,000 years of the Church because it wouldn't have been able to handle the confusion. Currently, we are facing confusion but...we have close to 2,000 years of consistant teachings to compare against a mere 50 years of heresy.

You are incorrect to say that it's the pope's job to teach the Faith to the faithful - this has never been the case (nor has it even been possible) until the times of modern communication. The diocesan bishop was the person remotely responsible for teaching the faith, while the parish priest has the proximate responsibility. The Pope's job is to run the Church, both governmentally and spiritually, with his official decisions and official teachings being relatively small when compared to the time he spends as pope.

Beaumont · « **Reply #87 on:** October 15, 2018, 08:43:55 PM »

In the first 1958 years of the Church the Vicar of Christ on Earth never taught heresy to the universal Church or enacted sinful disciplines. The Popes since Peter have all taught the Faith to the faithful through their letters and other means. They were the rule of Faith when any disputes broke out. If the Pope taught something you believed and submitted to it. You didn't tell him to pound sand because you knew better and tell him that he was in error.

Stubborn · « **Reply #88 on:** October 16, 2018, 06:14:51 AM »

Quote from: Beaumont on October 15, 2018, 03:47:24 PM

I guess the question is, how can a true pope teach decree and judge anti-Catholic teachings which, per Catholic doctrine, must be submitted to with intellect and will? The traditional teaching is that teaching from a pope must be presumed to be true and even if learned theologians have objections they must still exteriorly assent to the teaching and ask clarifying questions or raise objections privately to the pope. Unless you are a learned theologian you are bound to submit per the teaching authority of the Church. This is not because the teaching is per se infallible, but because the pope has the authority to teach. Although there is a chance this teaching could contain a minor error not afecting salvation, it could never contain heresy or else the Church would be requiring its faithful to damn themselves which is absurd.

The short answer to your question is; the only time a pope cannot teach error is when he defines a doctrine, period, other than that, he can teach whatever errors, blasphemies and heresies his heart desires - as the conciliar popes continue to demonstrate. The sedes deny this because they wrongly believe it to be a doctrine of the Church that the pope is always, or nearly always infallible, and on that account we owe him blind obedience.

This wrong belief means that the sedes have effectively trapped themselves in a state of consistent confusion between truth or doctrine, and the requirement of obedience to authority. This wrong belief manifests itself as a doctrine that teaches; "the only thing we have to worry about is doing what the priests and bishops and the pope tell us". This "doctrine" wrongly invokes authority as the supreme rule of faith, in so doing, it relieves the people of their religious obligations. This is the reason, played out in real time for 60+ years for our benefit, why authority is not the rule of faith, dogma is.

There have been plenty of popes who taught error, albeit nowhere near the extent that the conciliar popes have. Fr. Hesse has a good video on that subject on Youtube.

No, we do not need to be a learned theologian to know what error is, if that were the case, only [some] theologians would be in heaven. Use yourself as an example - you know the conciliar popes teach error and you're no theologian, I can assure you that the reason you know they preach error, is most assuredly *not* on account of their legitimacy or illegitimacy.

Author Topic: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book (Read 4235 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book

Cantarella

Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book

Pax Vobis

Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book

Stubborn

Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book

Cantarella

Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book

Cantarella

Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book

Stubborn

Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book

Pax Vobis

Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book

Beaumont

Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book

Stubborn

Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book

Beaumont

Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book

Pax Vobis

Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book

Beaumont

Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book

Stubborn

Re: Privationism in Fr. Wathen's book