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

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

Author Topic: The pope/head of 2 different Churches  (Read 4491 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline claudel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1776
  • Reputation: +1335/-419
  • Gender: Male
Re: The pope/head of 2 different Churches
« Reply #60 on: September 25, 2020, 04:47:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 25, 2020, 04:42:27 PM

    1) In such measure as it teaches Catholicism, it is Catholic, and in such measure as it teaches novelty, it is conciliar.

    Precisely. Thank you.

    With regard to the claim, above, of DecemRationis linking legitimacy and doctrinal reliability, the quoted sentence embodies a precise instance of the limit of what legitimacy may be said to guarantee.
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2520
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The pope/head of 2 different Churches
    « Reply #61 on: September 25, 2020, 05:17:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 25, 2020, 04:42:27 PM
    1) In such measure as it teaches Catholicism, it is Catholic, and in such measure as it teaches novelty, it is conciliar.

    2) Materially, they are members of the Catholic Church; formally, they are members of the conciliar church;

    3) Nope.  Universality is all that’s required.  There is no private interpretation involved when the Church has already decided.

    4) Was Liberius merely an “individual” when he taught/signed/agreed to a semi-Arian formula?  Was Athanasius exercising private interpretation when he refused to go along with it?
    1) So now each individual clause of each and every thing the Church pronounces are to be criticised to see if they're Conciliar or Catholic, with perhaps one sentence being Catholic and the very next being Conciliar? Pick-Your-Own-Magisterium? 

    2) And so formally, they are in schism with the Catholic Church. How can the hierarchy be in schism with itself? 

    3)  :facepalm:. I'll go ahead and just quote you "fasting laws are not doctrines/teachings, and therefore are not judged on the basis of universality".

    4) Those letters are most commonly believed to have either been forged. The remainder generally believe they were written under duress, and indeed he condemned the Arians and semi-Arians both before and after, even going into exile over it.
    Logged

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2327
    • Reputation: +876/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The pope/head of 2 different Churches
    « Reply #62 on: September 25, 2020, 06:10:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: claudel on September 25, 2020, 04:42:14 PM
    The only guarantee attendant upon the legitimacy of the process is the a priori one that something of merit could emerge from the process.*
    Thank you for that. It encapsulates your position nicely. Memorable.

    Except you left out that from the legitimate process  could - and has - emerged things spiritually noxious that endanger and even damn souls.
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The pope/head of 2 different Churches
    « Reply #63 on: September 25, 2020, 06:29:58 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on September 25, 2020, 05:17:02 PM
    1) So now each individual clause of each and every thing the Church pronounces are to be criticised to see if they're Conciliar or Catholic, with perhaps one sentence being Catholic and the very next being Conciliar? Pick-Your-Own-Magisterium?

    2) And so formally, they are in schism with the Catholic Church. How can the hierarchy be in schism with itself?

    3)  :facepalm:. I'll go ahead and just quote you "fasting laws are not doctrines/teachings, and therefore are not judged on the basis of universality".

    4) Those letters are most commonly believed to have either been forged. The remainder generally believe they were written under duress, and indeed he condemned the Arians and semi-Arians both before and after, even going into exile over it.
    1) The conciliar pronouncements are not magisterial.  There is only one magisterium;
    2) “To the extent they are conciliar...”
    3) Much appreciated.   :facepalm:
    4) Only John Daly and the sedes believe that (naturally).  Sounds like a bad rock band.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2520
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The pope/head of 2 different Churches
    « Reply #64 on: September 25, 2020, 07:13:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 25, 2020, 06:29:58 PM
    1) The conciliar pronouncements are not magisterial.  There is only one magisterium;
    2) “To the extent they are conciliar...”
    3) Much appreciated.   :facepalm:
    4) Only John Daly and the sedes believe that (naturally).  Sounds like a bad rock band.
    1) You said every pronouncement of the Church is Catholic insofar as it teaches Catholicism, and Conciliar insofar as it teaches novelty. So one has to go through each pronouncement clause by clause and use their private judgement to pick out what is Catholic(and therefore is part of the Magisterium) and what is Conciliar(and therefore is not). So it absolutely is Pick-Your-Own-Magisterium.

    2) Not an answer. How can the hierarchy be in schism with itself? Something being in schism with itself is a blatant contradiction.

    3) I'll humour you a moment and pretend you aren't playing dumb, and that you really have missed it. You said "universality is all that's required" for a pronouncement of the Church to be Catholic and not Conciliar. Then you(correctly) stated that universality is irrelevant to matters of discipline, and that for disciplines it's whether they're "contrary to the common good" or not that determines if they're Catholic or Conciliar. So, by that logic, every single law issued by the Church can be dismissed by a layman if he, in his private judgement, deems it "detrimental"--just as you did with fasting law.

    4) https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm Knock yourself out. When you're done with it, I can give you what multiple popes and saints have said about Pope Liberius. We can see if you declare the entire Church to be sede by the end.
    Logged

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1776
    • Reputation: +1335/-419
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The pope/head of 2 different Churches
    « Reply #65 on: September 25, 2020, 07:26:27 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on September 25, 2020, 06:10:37 PM

    Thank you for that. It encapsulates your position nicely. Memorable.

    Except you left out that from the legitimate process  could - and has - emerged things spiritually noxious that endanger and even damn souls.

    I didn't leave it out. It is implicit in the grammar and semantics of the sentence.

    In human life, everything is a crap shoot except for the certainty of birth and death. Similarly in the Faith, except as regards the certainty and finality of public revelation, perils beset us at every turn. For reasons yet unrevealed, God has permitted the Enemy to attack His Church in its very workings in a way that appears unexampled since its founding. To declare blithely that the pope and the bishops have, by means of their perfidy, removed themselves from their sacred offices is to dodge the problem rather than to face it squarely.
    Logged

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18310
    • Reputation: +5697/-1969
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The pope/head of 2 different Churches
    « Reply #66 on: September 26, 2020, 05:35:27 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Right now there is a Pope in Rome who publicly rejects Jesus and worshipped two naked female fertility statues and takes his orders from the satanic Communist United Nations. Every Catholic should be enraged and remove all these pedophiles out of Rome and the world.  So sick of these fαɢɢօt demons. 
    Logged
    May God bless you and keep you

    Offline LeDeg

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 778
    • Reputation: +535/-135
    • Gender: Male
    • I am responsible only to God and history.
    Re: The pope/head of 2 different Churches
    « Reply #67 on: September 26, 2020, 10:40:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • In regards to Liberius. This was very interesting. 


    Watch "On the story of Pope Liberius" on YouTube
    Logged
    "You must train harder than the enemy who is trying to kill you. You will get all the rest you need in the grave."- Leon Degrelle

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1949
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The pope/head of 2 different Churches
    « Reply #68 on: September 27, 2020, 04:22:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on September 25, 2020, 04:20:38 PM

    4) Because individuals can teach novelties, of course, and Catholics should be wary of that. But at the end of the day, it's the Church that decides if a doctrine is true or heretical, and when the Church proposes an article of faith then it says that it's traditional(since dogma cannot charge). Where does any Saint say we ought to question what the Church teaches?
    Just a thought that isn't fully formulated, but while "The Church" might *technically* say V2 is traditional (in a non infallible capacity) the idea that Florence, Trent, the Baltimore Catechism, and all the other old stuff are "what the Church used to teach" as opposed to Vatican II and "the Church's current position."  I hear this *a lot*.

    Furthermore, there's at least a very plausible argument that both Paul VI and Benedict XVI said that Vatican II wasn't intending to teach infallibly.

    I mean I get that there's precedent for the idea that even a fallible teaching can't be destructive to souls (though I see limited proof of this before Vatican *I* and most of the proof I see comes from Popes and canonists between Vatican I and Vatican II, so its not obvious to me that that's as definitive as NO Watch and others seem to think) but at the least, I don't see good argument that its infallible.  And yet everyone thinks the old teachings have been replaced with it...

    That seems to indicate something is up.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
    « previous next »