Author Topic: Ratzinger denies a BIG dogma (Read 14748 times)

SJB · « **Reply #45 on:** September 27, 2009, 12:35:41 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Caminus
Quote
And you do the same thing, Caminus. You challanged me to quote Billot and then discuss it...then you ran away. Do you ever reread what you say to people here? Where are your manners?

"Ran away"? LOL. I responded to you at the top of page 10. I can understand why you don't like the way I engage Raoul (and CM), but I have my reasons.

Yes, LOL.

Let's discuss the external and internal forum then. Do you know what they are? And do you know why they are irrelevant in this discussion. Billot doesn't mention them for a reason.

Okay, let's discuss it then. Yes, I know what they are, though they are explained differently depending on whether one is referring to the law or to moral theology.

Can you quote some authority that explains this?

Quote

Catholic's aren't considered material heretics because of the external bond of the profession of faith. That's not in dispute.

Correct. They ARE NOT any kind of HERETIC. They merely hold a material HERESY without pertinacity. That does not cause a loss of membership.

Quote

Tell me the difference, morally speaking, not juridically, between an "erring catholic" and a catholic who entertains false opinions about the faith. Does it lie in the rule of faith? That is exterior. When you consider the material fact of heresy residing in the mind, they are no different, interiorly speaking, according to that which is before God, than a material heretic in good faith outside of the Church. They both retain the habit of faith, but the difference is found in what is external to them. One is presumed to have faith, while the other is not. It is reduced to an error of fact. I don't see why you want to press this minor point when we have so much more important things to discuss.

I think what you are saying here is that a Catholic must be judged in the internal forum to be a HERETIC...to lose membership in the Church. This is wrong because all judgments are made in the external forum. Even a judgment by the Church is made in the external forum. The internal forum is irrelevant.

I'll quote some sources for this.

CM · « **Reply #46 on:** September 27, 2009, 03:16:42 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Good quote CM. As always you are a source of strength and joy when not preaching water-baptism only.

I cannot but tell the truth.

CM · « **Reply #47 on:** September 27, 2009, 03:30:24 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
Catholic's aren't considered material heretics because of the external bond of the profession of faith. That's not in dispute.

Correct. They ARE NOT any kind of HERETIC. They merely hold a material HERESY without pertinacity. That does not cause a loss of membership.

There are certain beliefs that a person can hold without pertinacity whereby they DO lose membership in the Catholic Church, whereby they do lose the Faith, whereby they ARE out of the way of salvation.

Believing wrongly concerning any of the following points:

Trinity, Incarnation, Judgment (cf. dogmatic Athanasian Creed)

Quote from: SJB

I think what you are saying here is that a Catholic must be judged in the internal forum to be a HERETIC...to lose membership in the Church. This is wrong because all judgments are made in the external forum. Even a judgment by the Church is made in the external forum. The internal forum is irrelevant.

I'll quote some sources for this.

Professing a false religion or adhering to a false sect makes one schismatic in the external forum. It constitutes a public defection of the faith.

SJB · « **Reply #48 on:** September 27, 2009, 07:05:51 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Quote from: SJB
Quote
Catholic's aren't considered material heretics because of the external bond of the profession of faith. That's not in dispute.

Correct. They ARE NOT any kind of HERETIC. They merely hold a material HERESY without pertinacity. That does not cause a loss of membership.

There are certain beliefs that a person can hold without pertinacity whereby they DO lose membership in the Catholic Church, whereby they do lose the Faith, whereby they ARE out of the way of salvation.

Believing wrongly concerning any of the following points:

Trinity, Incarnation, Judgment (cf. dogmatic Athanasian Creed)

Quote from: SJB
I think what you are saying here is that a Catholic must be judged in the internal forum to be a HERETIC...to lose membership in the Church. This is wrong because all judgments are made in the external forum. Even a judgment by the Church is made in the external forum. The internal forum is irrelevant.

I'll quote some sources for this.

Professing a false religion or adhering to a false sect makes one schismatic in the external forum. It constitutes a public defection of the faith.

You are lost.

Quote

There are certain beliefs that a person can hold without pertinacity whereby they DO lose membership in the Catholic Church

Where did you learn this?

CM · « **Reply #49 on:** September 27, 2009, 07:46:58 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: I
Professing a false religion or adhering to a false sect makes one schismatic in the external forum. It constitutes a public defection of the faith.

You are lost.

Excuse me, but what I have said is true. Do you want to argue that adherence to a false sect is not objectively schismatic? Hmmm... I guess that is the basis for holding that one may attend an una cuм Benedicto Mass, after all.

Quote from: SJB

Where did you learn this?

What part of (cf. Athanasian Creed) do you have trouble with?

Quote from: Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, infallibly

Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity...

Then he enumerates the articles of the creed before concluding with:

Quote

This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

So answer me this: Do you believe that a person can believe wrongly concerning those mysteries which are necessary for salvation, and still be said to hold the Faith, or to be in the way of salvation? Or that one who holds a corrupt rule of Faith can still be said to be Catholic?

Is a person Catholic if he believes Jesus Christ was man only and not God in the flesh?

Is a person Catholic if he believes that God is one God AND one person?

Is a person Catholic if he believes that there are three gods?

Caminus · « **Reply #50 on:** September 27, 2009, 11:24:55 PM »

Quote

Can you quote some authority that explains this?

Not off hand. But I do know that there is a slight difference in the term between its juridical and moral use.

Quote

Catholic's aren't considered material heretics because of the external bond of the profession of faith. That's not in dispute.

Quote

Correct. They ARE NOT any kind of HERETIC. They merely hold a material HERESY without pertinacity. That does not cause a loss of membership.

Correct, that's not in dispute.

Quote

I think what you are saying here is that a Catholic must be judged in the internal forum to be a HERETIC...to lose membership in the Church. This is wrong because all judgments are made in the external forum. Even a judgment by the Church is made in the external forum. The internal forum is irrelevant.

I'm considering the matter in an objective, abstract manner. The internal forum is relevant when considering the matter as an interior reality. That's half of what moral theology does, consider the inner workings within the soul and the operations of the intellect and will. This is the work of moral theology and rational psychology. But I do quibble a little insofar as judgments are made in the external forum, but formally true judgments are formed when the internal dispostion is manifested externally in some way.

CM · « **Reply #51 on:** September 27, 2009, 11:35:09 PM »

Caminus · « **Reply #52 on:** September 27, 2009, 11:46:26 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Robert Bellarmine, who wrote an entire treatise on the prospect of a heretical pope?

Yes.

Quote

Here is a little something from his work De Romano Pontifice...

And it is irrelevant. You need to prove that we're dealing with a set of facts that exactly match the historical narrative. Drawing such comparisons is rather tricky sometimes. Especially when you use them to try to relieve the burden of proof.

Quote

Now, Caminus, please refresh my memory: What exactly did Nestorius say that was heretical?

Let me help you out: "Mary is not the mother of God." Now was this proposition directly heretical? Was it a Divinely Revealed dogma that Mary was the mother of God? Or did following this teaching logically lead to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was only a man?

The proposition is equivalent to "The Son of Mary was not God" which is heretical. The denial is direct and unmistakable.

Quote

Yet, Pope St. Celestine insists that this doctrine was heresy, and that any clergy who continued to follow him after this point LOST ALL JURISDICTION.

It's just too bad that you're not the Pope.

Quote

When did they lose it? After a juridical pronouncement of excommunication? No. After they begun to to teach heresy, an act, by which the holy pope says that had "defected from the faith".

This again begs the question, but to satiate your will, I say that it was authority itself that determined the matter ex post facto.

Caminus · « **Reply #53 on:** September 27, 2009, 11:48:26 PM »

WRT to the pictures, don't confuse scandal with heresy. Also, I suggest you take a good, hard look at the doctrine concerning communicatio in sacris and the distinction between public and private worship.

Caminus · « **Reply #54 on:** September 28, 2009, 12:04:14 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

I apologize for calling you a liar, Caminus, even though saying that you don't defend Ratzinger was a lie.

I try so hard to emulate Jesus and Mary but I always fall so short. Mary when she was in school was taunted and just said "I'm sorry to have offended you."

Just let it be known, Caminus, that when you throw insults at me I'm not offended. They're actually funny because they're so over-the-top. You could do a thousand times worse and I'd still forgive you.

The only time you get under my skin is when others on this board take your position. That is depressing, because I believe you are leading them away from the faith. But if they choose to listen to you, or to their "Pope" who you defend, that is their choice. God gave them free will. It's not helping anyone for me to call you names.

Good quote CM. As always you are a source of strength and joy when not preaching water-baptism only.

Don't worry about offending me, worry about offending the divine unity of the Church and the heart of Jesus which you have done in almost every post.

I find the hypocritical doublestandard extremely distasteful in that you express the warmest of feelings for CM whilst he sins against the faith and the unity of the Church with impugnity, but you claim that I "lead others from the faith" simply because I demand your integrity.

CM · « **Reply #55 on:** September 28, 2009, 12:06:19 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

The proposition is equivalent to "The Son of Mary was not God" which is heretical. The denial is direct and unmistakable.

THANK YOU!

"Muslims together with us worship the one merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day"

Is equivalent to "Jesus Christ is not the one merciful God, mankind's judge"

But you deny this because it first involves the knowledge first that Christ is the judge (which all must know in order to be saved) and second that Muslims reject His Divinity.

You assert that the denial is not direct, even though it is the logical conclusion, requiring one step of reasoning, and only one. This step of reasoning does not make the proposition any less heretical, because the conclusion is in contradiction to a dogma.

So the proposition needs to be censured in some way, and the only way is heresy. The next step down from this is proximate to heresy, that is the denial of a truth that is proximate to the Faith, but the proposition from Lumen Gentium simply does not qualify for this censure, since the nature of Christ as Judge is already proposed as Divinely revealed.

Caminus · « **Reply #56 on:** September 28, 2009, 12:08:14 AM »

Again, for the reasons stated above, it cannot be censured as heretical. You again admit as much considering that you posit a deduction.

Caminus · « **Reply #57 on:** September 28, 2009, 12:09:02 AM »

Do you know what I mean when I say we can consider the same object either materially or formally?

Caminus · « **Reply #58 on:** September 28, 2009, 12:10:28 AM »

Also, you've already conceded that objectively speaking it cannot be heretical.

CM · « **Reply #59 on:** September 28, 2009, 12:12:10 AM »

You're the one whose position it is that a heresy must be a blatant, unambiguous and immediately obvious denial of a dogma.

I recognize that a statement is heretical, which when brought to it's only possible conclusion denies a dogma.