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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]

Author Topic:  (Read 21986 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caminus

(No subject)
« Reply #50 on: October 04, 2009, 05:35:07 PM »
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 circuмstances 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.  
Logged

Offline CM

(No subject)
« Reply #51 on: October 04, 2009, 05:52:09 PM »
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 circuмstances.  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.
Logged

Offline Caminus

(No subject)
« Reply #52 on: October 04, 2009, 10:32:41 PM »
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 circuмstances.  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.

Logged

Offline CM

(No subject)
« Reply #53 on: October 04, 2009, 11:13:09 PM »
Retract what specifically?
Logged

Offline CM

(No subject)
« Reply #54 on: October 04, 2009, 11:44:22 PM »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]
« previous next »