Author Topic: (Read 5832 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #1 on:** October 01, 2009, 02:23:20 PM »

Nothing like a "fresh" perspective, stevie!

Why not just go sort through the archived folder at FE, where I (and others) came and went, discussing all kinds of interesting things at length, before you ever showed up?

CM · « **Reply #2 on:** October 01, 2009, 03:31:18 PM »

Caminus · « **Reply #3 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:12:08 PM »

Quote

Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, there-fore, sentences called "ipso facto" have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect, false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.

I've seen you misappropriate this before and let it slide. This condemnation was directed at those who denied that ipso facto sentences has an intrinsic value or force. No one here asserts this notion, therefore to put forth this as somehow material to the discussion is simply a straw man.

I guess it would be useless to add that the level of ignorance, presumption and carelessness among those who feel free to wade into the deep waters of theology and issue dogmatic decrees of condemnations of persons is shocking to say the least. Such calls for responsibility are futile when dealing with the bitter zeal of a propagandist bent on establishing credibility for his pet theories.

CM · « **Reply #4 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:20:54 PM »

Caminus, if ipso facto excommunication is indeed real, then are you going to suggest that Catholic have no right to recognize it when it is publicly manifest?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:48:03 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

...No one here asserts this notion, therefore to put forth this as somehow material to the discussion is simply a straw man.

I guess it would be useless to add that the level of ignorance, presumption and carelessness among those who feel free to wade into the deep waters of theology and issue dogmatic decrees of condemnations of persons is shocking to say the least.

The first sentence quoted above seems to lack a certain consistency with the second, particularly the bold section.

Surely you can share the texts of these "dogmatic decrees of condemnations"? Straw man?

Caraffa · « **Reply #6 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:49:06 PM »

I agree with Fr. hαɾɾιson, but I would add one point: One does not have to be obedient to a heretical pope or bishop.

Paul IV, cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio:

I. the clergy, secular and religious;
II. the laity;
III. the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;
IV. Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).

CM · « **Reply #7 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:54:48 PM »

Quote from: Caraffa

I agree with Fr. hαɾɾιson, but I would add one point: One does not have to be obedient to a heretical pope or bishop.

What nonsense is this? This Fr. hαɾɾιson asserts that the heretical 'pope' would be VALID, yet the very docuмent you quote indicates that such a 'Pontiff' is no Pontiff at all.

Quote from: cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio

Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

Caraffa, snap out of it.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #8 on:** October 01, 2009, 06:01:16 PM »

Does anyone care to substantively dispute the article?

Where exactly does the author go wrong? Where is the crux of the disagreement?

Thanks.

CM · « **Reply #9 on:** October 01, 2009, 06:07:52 PM »

I read this article a long time ago when my dad sent it to me. Even then I had already seen how it was filled with fallacies.

Why don't you spare me the trouble of refuting it point by point, and rather present what you feel is the most compelling argument contained therein?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #10 on:** October 01, 2009, 07:04:37 PM »

Quote from: Caraffa

Paul IV, cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio:

Why not share the ENTIRE text?

Caminus · « **Reply #11 on:** October 01, 2009, 07:09:03 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Caminus, if ipso facto excommunication is indeed real, then are you going to suggest that Catholic have no right to recognize it when it is publicly manifest?

Not legally, no. And especially from our vantage point with regard to the "entire Church." In the concrete, with regard to one whom you personally know and the facts are not in reasonable dispute, a moral certainty could be attained. But to extrapolate this into the "sedevacantist thesis" frought with all it's problems is epistemologically inadmissable.

But this is a different question than what the original text referred to. It didn't regard the "knowability" but rather the "effectiveness" of the penalty itself. It was a theoretical, not a practical question.

Caminus · « **Reply #12 on:** October 01, 2009, 07:10:55 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Caminus
...No one here asserts this notion, therefore to put forth this as somehow material to the discussion is simply a straw man.

I guess it would be useless to add that the level of ignorance, presumption and carelessness among those who feel free to wade into the deep waters of theology and issue dogmatic decrees of condemnations of persons is shocking to say the least.

The first sentence quoted above seems to lack a certain consistency with the second, particularly the bold section.

Surely you can share the texts of these "dogmatic decrees of condemnations"? Straw man?

Certainly the dogmatic character is revealed once a man starts to determine who is and who is not a member of the Church in relation to his new found opinion.

Caminus · « **Reply #13 on:** October 01, 2009, 07:14:31 PM »

But at any rate, that comment was not really in reference to an "argument" made by an opponent, so it doesn't really fit into the category of a "straw man." It could have been a bit hyperbolic for some, but it certainly touches upon the truth of the attitude of the members of the Church of the SedeVacante.

CM · « **Reply #14 on:** October 01, 2009, 07:23:53 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Certainly the dogmatic character is revealed once a man starts to determine who is and who is not a member of the Church in relation to his new found opinion.

It is NOT a new found opinion that heretics are outside the Church, and that to be in communion with a false bishop of Rome is to be out of communion with the Church.

Author Topic: (Read 5832 times)

stevusmagnus

(No subject)

gladius_veritatis

(No subject)

CM

(No subject)

Caminus

(No subject)

CM

(No subject)

gladius_veritatis

(No subject)

Caraffa

(No subject)

CM

(No subject)

stevusmagnus

(No subject)

CM

(No subject)

gladius_veritatis

(No subject)

Caminus

(No subject)

Caminus

(No subject)

Caminus

(No subject)

CM

(No subject)