Author Topic: Public Heretics and Loss of Office in the Catholic Church (Read 2458 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #15 on:** July 28, 2016, 10:06:26 AM »

Have no idea what you mean.

TKGS · « **Reply #16 on:** July 28, 2016, 10:35:38 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

This is a vast over-simplification and just not true.
Canon law is NOT infallible. If so, why do we need different iterations of it?

Councils are NOT infallible. History has numerous councils which have been erroneous.

The liturgy is NOT infallible. If so, then why did St Pius V need to codify the missal?

The only thing I agree with is the sacraments, however we must distinguish in the sacraments between the matter/form and the ritual/prayers which surround them, and which were developed by the Church over the centuries. The matter/form is from Christ; the rituals/prayers are man made additions.

1. Canon Law. A variety of disciplinary and administrative laws can change as situations warrant. Obviously, laws which have nothing to do with faith and morals do not involve infallibility, but the Church cannot enact laws which tend toward the loss of souls (such as the new laws of the Conciliar church which specifically allow sacrilege).

2. Ecuмenical Councils in communion with the pope are infallible in matters of faith and morals. If this is what you mean is not infallible, then you are a heretic and are outside the Catholic Church.

3. The liturgy is infallible. Pope St. Pius V codified the Roman Missal because of the heresies in the West which were perverting the liturgy.

Pax Vobis, I had thought that you were fairly intelligent. I must have had you confused with another poster.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #17 on:** July 28, 2016, 11:59:28 AM »

F.M. de Zulueta, S.J. on Disciplinary Infallibility

Quote

The Church was established by Jesus Christ not only to teach and explain unerringly the revealed Law of God, but also to make laws for the spiritual good of her subjects. Thus, Our Lord said to the Apostles in general: ‘Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in Heaven.’ (St. Matt. xviii, 18.)

In these words Our Saviour authorizes the rulers of His Church to bind us morally by means of laws, and likewise to release us from obligations imposed by law. The whole end and purpose for which He founded the Church was to forward the spiritual interests of souls in this world, and so to guide them to Heaven hereafter. Such, then, being the duty assigned to the Church by Christ, she must also have received from Him the corresponding right and power to make such laws as she sees to be necessary for securing those interests.

As a complete and independent spiritual kingdom the Church is competent to make such laws. In other words, she is endowed by her Divine Founder with legislative as well as teaching authority. Thus, while she exercises her power to ‘teach all nations‘ when explaining the Ten Commandments of God, and claims our assent to her teaching, she makes use besides of her authority – equally received from Christ – when framing other laws of her own, and lawfully claims our whole-hearted obedience to them.

But our duty towards Church legislation does not end with mere obedience. Since the Church of Christ has the premise of infallibility for her moral guidance as well as for her doctrinal teaching, it forms part of a Catholic’s duty to recognise as good and righteous the laws which the Church makes for the conduct of all her subjects. For if they could be morally bad the Church would be capable of leading her entire flock morally astray, and so her infallibility in morals would cease.

Letters on Christian Doctrine (First Series), The Ten Commandments of God and the Precepts of the Church by F. M. De Zulueta, S.J. Revised in Accordance with the New Codex of Canon Law by H. Davis, S.J. (St. Beuno’s College) Vol. 1, Ninth Edition, London, Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1922, pp. 323, 324.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #18 on:** July 28, 2016, 12:01:30 PM »

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_II

Disciplinary infallibility

Quote

What connexion is there between the discipline of the Church and her infallibility? Is there a certain disciplinary infallibility? It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians unless apropos of the canonization of saints and the approbation of religious orders. It has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ). The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i.e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching. It is quite permissible, however, to inquire how far this infallibility extends, and to what extent, in her disciplinary activity, the Church makes use of the privilege of inerrancy granted her by Jesus Christ when she defines matters of faith and morals. Infallibility is directly related to the teaching office (magisterium), and although this office and the disciplinary power reside in the same ecclesiastical authorities, the disciplinary power does not necessarily depend directly on the teaching office. Teaching pertains to the order of truth; legislation to that of justice and prudence. Doubtless, in last analysis all ecclesiastical laws are based on certain fundamental truths, but as laws their purpose is neither to confirm nor to condemn these truths. It does not seem, therefore, that the Church needs any special privilege of infallibility to prevent her from enacting laws contradictory of her doctrine. To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform.

From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law; the most remarkable instance of this being the suppression of the chalice in the Communion of the laity. This has often been violently attacked as contrary to the Gospel. Concerning it the Council of Constance (1415) declared (Sess. XIII): "The claim that it is sacrilegious or illicit to observe this custom or law [Communion under one kind] must be regarded as erroneous, and those who obstinately affirm it must be cast aside as heretics." The opinion, generally admitted by theologians, that the Church is infallible in her approbation of religious orders, must be interpreted in the same sense; it means that in her regulation of a manner of life destined to provide for the practice of the evangelical counsels she cannot come into conflict with these counsels as received from Christ together with the rest of the Gospel revelation. (See ROMAN CONGREGATIONS.)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #19 on:** July 28, 2016, 12:07:12 PM »

Quote

1. Canon Law. A variety of disciplinary and administrative laws can change as situations warrant. Obviously, laws which have nothing to do with faith and morals do not involve infallibility, but the Church cannot enact laws which tend toward the loss of souls (such as the new laws of the Conciliar church which specifically allow sacrilege).

2. Ecuмenical Councils in communion with the pope are infallible in matters of faith and morals. If this is what you mean is not infallible, then you are a heretic and are outside the Catholic Church.

3. The liturgy is infallible. Pope St. Pius V codified the Roman Missal because of the heresies in the West which were perverting the liturgy.

You made some good distinctions, but more distinctions are necessary. This was my point. Canon law is, by definition, church law, which isn't made by humans. It isn't infallible, unless specifically related to faith/morals, which it normally is not concerned with. It is normally concerned with the running of the govt aspect of the church, which is a human affair.

Council docuмents are not infallible, unless dealing with faith/morals/dogma and even then, only the specific STATEMENT, infallibly pronounced, is infallible, not the entire docuмent. "We declare, define and pronounce..." All else is fallible, or could be.

The liturgy, as explained by Pius XII in 'mediator dei' is both human and divine origin, so it is not 100% infallible. The genuflection during the Credo was an addition to the liturgy by a King. That's a human addition; not infallible. There are many such additions to the liturgy over the centuries. Many are beautiful and spiritual. But they have nothing to do with infallibility, because the liturgy doesn't teach doctrine, explicitly.

The original post by "Lover of Truth" said that Canon Law, Councils and the Liturgy, are all infallible. This is not true at all. It is an over generalization and leads to confusion. Now, if we add in your distinctions, then we are coming closer to the truth.

Really, I don't need to enumerate distinctions but just point to Vatican I and if the matter in question does not fulfill the 4 requirements, then the statement isn't infallible. It's that simple.