Author Topic: The Heretical Pope Fallacy (Read 30551 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #270 on:** January 10, 2018, 01:59:39 PM »

"religious assent" is not the same as absolute intellectual assent

it's more like a religious submission

Quote

Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’.

Lercher teaches that the internal assent due to these pronouncements cannot be called certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term. The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.” Lyons and Phillips use the same approach in describing the assent Catholics are in conscience bound to give to the Church’s non-infallible teachings. Fr. Yves de la Brière speaks of the “submission and hierarchical obedience” due to these pronouncements.

Essentially, it's a very strong benefit of the doubt and preliminary assumption that the teaching is correct; it's more like an attitude of docility towards the Magisteirum ... which R&R have completely lost.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #271 on:** January 10, 2018, 02:25:16 PM »

Here's another question:
Let's just assume that Paul VI was valid and that V2 was non-solemnly infallible, because of the idea of indefectibility - this leads to the conclusion:
V2's non-solemn teachings contradicted previous SOLEMN teachings. Indefectibility fails, absolutely, no questions asked. Because V2 DIRECTLY contradicts an infallible statement.

How does one explain this? Let's analyze the possibilities.

My proposal:
a. infallible teaching = NO
b. binding on the faithful = NO
c. indefectibility compromised = NO, but debatable.
d. Summary: V2 is a rambling mess of docuмents, with no coherancy, nor legal exactness and thus, it has no impact on the constant teaching of the Faith since it was not officially composed nor binding in its language. Though it was composed at an ecuмenical council and approved by the pope, what was actually 'approved' contains nothing that FORCES the faithful to accept error, even if it "proposes" error in an indirect, passive and non-authoritative manner. It is full of legal trickery and satanic cleverness. It can, and should be, ignored.

Ladislaus proposal:
a. infallible teaching = UNCERTAIN but PROBABLE
b. binding on the faithful = YES, since it came from the 'magisterium' at an ecuмenical council
c. indefectibility compromised = NO
d. Summary: V2 came from an ecuмenical council and therefore is binding on the faithful and cannot contain error, even though it directly contradicts previous infallible statements. Christ's promise that the 'gates of hell shall not prevail' has been broken, for V2 officially taught error to the faithful and binds them to accept a new faith which is in contradiction to 2,000 years of constant teachings.

Sede proposal:
a. infallible teaching = NO, because Paul VI was not the pope.
b. binding on the faithful = NO, because Paul VI was not the pope.
c. indefectibility compromised = NO, because Paul VI was not the pope.
d. Summary: Paul VI was not the pope because i've personally used canon law to judge him...why am I even commenting on this debate?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #272 on:** January 10, 2018, 02:27:48 PM »

Quote

it's more like an attitude of docility towards the Magisteirum ... which R&R have completely lost.

Correction: "which the magisterium does not deserve, due to their lack of orthodoxy."

Lad, how are you not R&R, if you think that V2 is valid and binding, due to your view of indefectibility? Your arguments are at odds with Fr Chazal...

graceseeker · « **Reply #273 on:** January 10, 2018, 02:37:35 PM »

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on December 31, 2017, 06:05:26 PM

This article was published in Vatican Insider last November. Traditional Catholics should be familiar with its assumptions and arguments. It is unfortunate but true that many traditional Catholics share the same assumptions and consequently have a problem

thanks. I have copied it to read later, as don't have much time

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #274 on:** January 10, 2018, 03:41:34 PM »

Quote

There is no such thing as the "non-infallible magisterium".

Theologians would disagree with you.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #275 on:** January 10, 2018, 03:48:54 PM »

Quote

The popes have spoken...

Using terms which you are using incorrectly, which is why theologians exist, to explain such terms.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #276 on:** January 10, 2018, 04:32:39 PM »

I agree. Theologians explain distinctions in Church teaching, they do not teach. You don't understand (or want to ignore) certain distinctions, therefore your arguments are general and overly-simplistic and do not adequately answer the questions at hand.

Cantarella · « **Reply #277 on:** January 10, 2018, 09:21:11 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 10, 2018, 10:02:53 AM

What if there were no decrees? If you think there are, please point them out because I can't find them.

If there are no decrees, then what part is infallible? Without proper, strict language, how do we know which parts are infallible or not?

A decree is a law. The word 'formulate' usually accompanies 'decrees' because a decree is a specific, articulate, doctrinal statement which the clergy spends time to formulate and is meant to teach and bind, in an authoritative way. V2 was flowery, non-specific, inarticulate and non-doctrinal. Nothing in V2 comes REMOTELY close to a decree. This is the key.

In ecclesiastical law, a decree refers to any papal bull, Brief, or Motu Propio inasmuch as these docuмents are legislative acts of the Roman Pontiff. Furthermore, the CE explains that in respect of the general legislative acts of the pope there is never doubt as to the universal extent of the obligation; the same may be said of the decrees of a General Council, e.g. those of the Vatican Council.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #278 on:** January 11, 2018, 08:24:00 AM »

Quote

Furthermore, the CE explains that in respect of the general legislative acts of the pope there is never doubt as to the universal extent of the obligation;

Correct, except V2 did not have any legislative acts! St Thomas defines a law as:
1. a certain dictate of reason
2. for the common good,
3. made by him who has the care of the community
4. and promulgated publicly.

V2 fulfils 2, 3 and 4 but not 1. "Dictate" means 'an order or principle that must be obeyed'. V2 never authoritatively tells any catholic they MUST believe x. It never uses the words like "shall" or "must" or "we command" or "we order", etc. These phrases are a BASIC part of law and if they are not there, then there is no obligation, even if the law is valid.

Example: Your parents have a rule in the house - "Bedtime may begin after dark and usually before midnight." Ok, so what's the obligation? There is none. It's a guideline. Does it say "shall be before midnight"? No, so it's negotiable. Does it say there's a penalty for going to bed before dark? No, there's no penalty. It's a passive, indirect, and subjective law. V2 is filled with this type of language, which is not exact, and therefore, we are obligated to nothing.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #279 on:** January 11, 2018, 09:00:20 AM »

You still have no idea the point I'm trying to make...

I'm not talking about the end langauge of the council, but of the docuмents themselves, which are indirect and non-binding. If the individual decrees are not strict, then at the end of the council, when Paul VI says "all decrees are published by me, etc, etc" it means nothing because the decree/law itself is 'negotiable'.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #280 on:** January 11, 2018, 09:16:17 AM »

Let's continue with the parents analogy:

Imagine that a set of parents have a binder in which all the rules of the house are contained. Each rule is on a piece of paper and is called a 'decree' or a 'constitution'. Your parents went away on a long trip and made a big deal about how they were going to have an 'ecuмenical' meeting and come back with rules for the house. When they came back, the parents gathered all the children into a room and told them that "all the decrees contained in this binder have the full authority of your Mother and I, and all that we have established on our 'council trip' will be legal and binding and effective, etc etc." (just pretend they used the exact same V2 language you quoted for the end of the council).

Now, little Johnny asks, is there a 'decree' on what time we have to go to bed? The parents say, "Of course, Johnny, we covered that situation. The law is this:"

"Bedtime may begin after dark and usually before midnight."

Johnny says: "Ok, so do I have to go to bed at the same time every night?"
Parents: "No, not necessarily."
Johnny: "Could I ever go to bed before dark or after midnight?"
Parents: "Yes, depending on the situation."
Johnny: "That's not a very clear rule."
Parents: "Yes, but its a LAW and MUST be obeyed, because it came from our 'ecuмenical' trip."
Johhny: "Ok, i'll obey it."

Reality check: The law is meaningless because it's not exact and little Johnny would have to work REALLY hard to DISOBEY the law, because it's a stupid law and allows all manner of things, EVEN IF IT APPEARS to order something, in reality, IT DOES NOT ORDER ANYTHING.

So it is with V2's decrees.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #281 on:** January 11, 2018, 09:49:07 AM »

Again, you miss the point. That ending statement refers back to the word 'decree', which is the law itself. And, as in my example, if the actual law is ambiguous then all the fancy, legal words which say that "the law is binding, etc" is meaningless, because the law itself is meaningless. You have to look at what the law actually says in the decree.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #282 on:** January 11, 2018, 10:35:23 AM »

Quote

If Paul VI is Pope, he is infallibly saying that what is contained therein is binding.

But V2 contradicts itself, so which parts are binding?
Here's a made-up example of V2 "teaching":
The Church says that the sky is always blue from the catholic perspective but, from outside of the church it looks red to those of our 'separated brethren'. If the church looks at the sky from both perspectives, it is actually purple because God knows how all people see and He created eyes, so purple could be the color of the sky, in a theological sense, even though we know from our faith that catholics see blue.

So, which is the true color - blue, red or purple? What is binding? See the problem?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #283 on:** January 11, 2018, 11:34:40 AM »

There is no problem Pax, only to those who can't face the Truth.

Development of doctrine does not mean doctrine can change, it only means at times during the history of the Church, the Church defines what God has revealed because suddenly Defined Truth has come under attack.

These new pretenders believe the development of doctrine means to adapt it to the world and change direction of revealed Truths. But, if you really believe that he is a True pope you are obligated to go along with it or be a hypocrite.

Since you do not want to go along with the exaggerated "truth" than you must not believe he is the true pope.

Cantarella · « **Reply #284 on:** January 11, 2018, 12:17:36 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 11, 2018, 09:00:20 AM

You still have no idea the point I'm trying to make...

I'm not talking about the end langauge of the council, but of the docuмents themselves, which are indirect and non-binding. If the individual decrees are not strict, then at the end of the council, when Paul VI says "all decrees are published by me, etc, etc" it means nothing because the decree/law itself is 'negotiable'.

It is not the precise narrative that makes the decrees binding; it is the papal promulgation of them in a setting of a General Council.

Catholics are not supposed to scrutinize every detail of the council docuмents trying to identify what parts are binding and what parts are not. We are supposed to give religious asent to whatever is proposed in a ecunemical Council ratified by a pope, trusting that it is for our own benefit.

You can't pick and choose.

Author Topic: The Heretical Pope Fallacy (Read 30551 times)

Ladislaus

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy

Pax Vobis

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy

Pax Vobis

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy

graceseeker

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy

Pax Vobis

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy

Pax Vobis

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy

Pax Vobis

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy

Cantarella

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy

Pax Vobis

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy

Pax Vobis

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy

Pax Vobis

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy

Pax Vobis

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy

Pax Vobis

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy

MyrnaM

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy

Cantarella

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy