Author Topic:  (Read 4457 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2726
  • Reputation: +1/-0
(No subject)
« Reply #45 on: October 03, 2009, 06:45:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Sedes are heretics as they deny the current Pope as valid and believe in private judgment. In addition they are in schism as they also deny the Pope's rightful authority over them.


    You don't even know what you're talking about.  Private judgment?  Do you ever make any private judgments of your own?  Of course you do.

    There are certain judgments that we can make you know stevusmagnus, without violating the law.  Do you happen to know what judgments are forbidden?

    It is judging the sense of Scripture and Tradition privately and in contradiction to the MAGISTERIUM of the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers.  However, when there are passages of Scripture that have not been defined by Holy Mother Church, so long as a person's judgment does not contradict the Faith, it is perfectly lawful to form judgments on these passages.

    According to you a person who denies that a heretic can be pope is a heretic himself.  Wow!  Maybe you should elect him to be your new pope!

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6398
    • Reputation: +1426/-37
    • Gender: Male
    (No subject)
    « Reply #46 on: October 03, 2009, 06:50:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Sedes are heretics as they deny the current Pope as valid and believe in private judgment. In addition they are in schism as they also deny the Pope's rightful authority over them.


    Considering there are countless ecclesiastics, in Traddieland and Novus-ville, who do not go so far, you might want to rethink your presumptions (i.e., PRIVATE judgments about this situation).

    Your comments quoted above are really rather uninformed and third-rate, stevus, even if we presume you are correct about the present situation.
    + Vincit veritas +


    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    (No subject)
    « Reply #47 on: October 03, 2009, 07:09:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: gladius_veritatis
    Your comments quoted above are really rather uninformed and third-rate, stevus, even if we presume you are correct about the present situation.


    Pretend, rather.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    (No subject)
    « Reply #48 on: October 04, 2009, 10:56:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Catholic Martyr
    Caminus, your examples that do not add one tittle to Public Revelation are in fact perfect examples of the Church invoking Her infallibility on matters of faith and morals.

    When a proposition is condemned as heretical, it is condemned as contrary to revealed dogma, which is only Faith and morals.


    You've just conceded the point.  Now you change your tune a little for you previously asserted infallibility pertains only to matters of divine revelation.  That was the foundation of your most ridiculous argument denying infallibility to dogmatic facts and truths of philosophy.  Now you want to assert that the negation of revelation is somehow actually a part of revelation.  

    Quote
    The Church generally refrains, however from condemning the intended meaning of the authors of such propositions, and with good cause.  It can be very difficult to know the subjective state of the persons soul and disposition, not to mention mitigating factors, the potential unreliability of the human testimony, etc.


    The Church ALWAYS condemned a proposition in the sense that the author intended, at least according to the propositions context.  

    Quote
    For example, it has happened before that enemies a particular person stitch together quotes from his or her works in a disingenuous and unrepresentative manner, present them to the Holy See, and demand condemnation.


    And in such cases, the Holy Office conducted a thorough investigation into the matter.  What you imply is that it is practially impossible to extract the intended meaning, which is exactly what the Jansenists alleged.

    Quote
    How could the same not apply to canonizations, which also rely on fallible human testimony?


    Witness testimony is considered to constitute morally certain evidence.  But ultimately, there can be no error because of the exercise of supreme authority, upon which our certitude rests.  The Church is infallible because it possesses supreme authority, not the other way around.

    Quote
    All instances named in the second paragraph quoted are instances that touch specifically on how various objects stand in relation to the dogmas of faith and morals.


    To assert that something "stands in relation" is to imply a non-identity.  

    Quote
    So you have yet to prove what you assert, that is that the Holy Ghost was promised for any other purpose than to religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.


    I don't need to prove it because you've already conceded the point.  Unless you wish to assert that heresy or a falsehood has more of a "relation" to the faith than the Saints whose relics adorn our altars and who stand as perfect witnesses and models of Christian learning and sanctity?  Are you prepared to assert such diabolical nonsense?

    You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the exercise of supreme authority somehow affects the content of revelation when in reality the two notions are entirely distinct.  It is this fallacy which vitiates your mind.  If you persist, your infamy will be noted yet again and will bring nothing but scorn and contempt upon your person.  

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    (No subject)
    « Reply #49 on: October 04, 2009, 02:59:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is a difference between exercising supreme authority and infallibility.

    Quote from: Caminus
    Quote from: Catholic Martyr
    Caminus, your examples that do not add one tittle to Public Revelation are in fact perfect examples of the Church invoking Her infallibility on matters of faith and morals.

    When a proposition is condemned as heretical, it is condemned as contrary to revealed dogma, which is only Faith and morals.



    You've just conceded the point.  Now you change your tune a little for you previously asserted infallibility pertains only to matters of divine revelation.


    You weirdo the dogmas of faith and morals ARE Divine revelation!


    Quote from: Caminus
    That was the foundation of your most ridiculous argument denying infallibility to dogmatic facts


    A dogmatic fact is a convergence between a dogma and a historical certainty.  History, however does not contain ABSOLUTELY certain truths, as historical revisionists will happily tell you, but morally certain at best.  This is far from infallible.


    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    (No subject)
    « Reply #50 on: October 04, 2009, 05:35:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Catholic Martyr
    There is a difference between exercising supreme authority and infallibility.
    Quote


    No, there is no difference.  The reason why God doesn't allow error in certain circumstances is precisely because men use His authority in a supreme degree.  As such, God has promised not to allow error to creep in where His authority is used in such a manner because it would be equivalent to binding men's consciences to error for all eternity.  Our certitude thus rests upon authority.  Again, the subject matter and the authority exercised upon it are two different things.

    Quote
    You've just conceded the point.  Now you change your tune a little for you previously asserted infallibility pertains only to matters of divine revelation.


    Quote
    You weirdo the dogmas of faith and morals ARE Divine revelation!


    Heresy doesn't constitute dogma.  I can't believe I have to tell you that.

    Quote
    A dogmatic fact is a convergence between a dogma and a historical certainty.  History, however does not contain ABSOLUTELY certain truths, as historical revisionists will happily tell you, but morally certain at best.  This is far from infallible.


    That's a bad description, where did you get that?  At any rate, our certitude rests not upon history, but authority.  The supreme irony here is that you appear to be bedfellows with liberal catholics who cast doubt upon the Saints of the Church and the doctrinal traditions of the Church, claimng that the only thing we're required to believe is that which has been dogmatically defined.  

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    (No subject)
    « Reply #51 on: October 04, 2009, 05:52:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No difference between supreme authority and infallibility?  Come now, that is pretty bizarre to say the least.  Infallibility is what protects the pope from erring on doctrine and only when he meets the criteria in the Vatican Council.

    Supreme authority is the fact that no authority is higher than the pope.  If even acts of the pope in his fallible capacity demand assent, then you have to say that these are infallible, since they came from his supreme authority given by God.  But we all know that the pope can err under certain circumstances.  How do you reconcile this, unless you say that he does not exercise supreme authority when speaking in his fallible capacity?

    And then, how do you escape the problem of your position, which is that it allows us to judge the Holy See any time it does not speak ex cathedra?

    Heresy is a proposition in contradiction to Divine revelation.  Therefore, a pope condemning heresy is speaking on a doctrine concerning faith or morals which has been handed down in the Deposit of Faith and is binding on all Christians, and therefore infallible.

    You're distorting the matter.  I say we ARE bound to believe in canonizations just as we believe in any act of the pope in his fallible capacity.  But just like an encyclical, for example, in which he does not specifically bind all the faithful, we are not bound to believe that he is necessarily free from all error.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    (No subject)
    « Reply #52 on: October 04, 2009, 10:32:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    No difference between supreme authority and infallibility?  Come now, that is pretty bizarre to say the least.  Infallibility is what protects the pope from erring on doctrine and only when he meets the criteria in the Vatican Council.


    Correct, there is no difference.  When the Pope exercises his supreme authority, the matter is judged with infallibility.  

    Quote
    Supreme authority is the fact that no authority is higher than the pope.  If even acts of the pope in his fallible capacity demand assent, then you have to say that these are infallible, since they came from his supreme authority given by God.  But we all know that the pope can err under certain circumstances.  How do you reconcile this, unless you say that he does not exercise supreme authority when speaking in his fallible capacity?


    You're confusing the man who possesses the authority and the exercise thereof.  There are varying degrees of assent and certitude with regard to magisterial teaching.  

    Quote
    And then, how do you escape the problem of your position, which is that it allows us to judge the Holy See any time it does not speak ex cathedra?


    No, that doesn't follow at all.  Where do you come up with these wild inferences?  Now here's your problem, according to your logic, every exercise of the papal magisterium is ipso fact infallible because it is exercised by one who possesses supreme authority.  

    Quote
    Heresy is a proposition in contradiction to Divine revelation.  Therefore, a pope condemning heresy is speaking on a doctrine concerning faith or morals which has been handed down in the Deposit of Faith and is binding on all Christians, and therefore infallible.


    There is no way around your previous assertion.  You need to retract it now.



    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    (No subject)
    « Reply #53 on: October 04, 2009, 11:13:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Retract what specifically?

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    (No subject)
    « Reply #54 on: October 04, 2009, 11:44:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  •  

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16