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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 67

Author Topic: The Heretical Pope Fallacy  (Read 98267 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Meg

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #175 on: January 05, 2018, 03:39:00 PM »
Quote from: Stubborn on January 05, 2018, 02:52:38 PM
Anytime a sedewhatever says I'm not Catholic, I fully understand why they say that and I just take it for what it's worth.  

Good idea. They seem to believe that their opinion is somehow binding. They're like little popes.
Logged

Offline Cantarella

Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #176 on: January 05, 2018, 11:28:19 PM »
Quote
Since not everything taught by the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, we must ask what kind of assent we should give to its various decisions.
(1) The Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and moral truths defined by the Church's Magisterium (there were no doctrinal or moral truths defined at V2).

(2) He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith (nothing from V2 was imposed upon the whole Church as a dogma of faith).

(2 b) In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. (this is why new-rome says we must give 'religious assent' to V2)

(2 c) This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one's superior (under normal circuмstances, yes, we trust our superiors.  Not in the case of post-V2)....Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question (Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de L’Èglise, 1935, pp.153,154).  (Yes, based on the gravity and confusion of V2, their "teachings" need to be further examined, for they are not infallible, nor clear, nor are they trival matters.)

Do you really think this quote was made in reference to an Ecuмenical Council, Pax Vobis? I am willing to bet that this citation is NOT applicable to the decrees proposed by a General Council at all. The decrees proposed by a General Council are binding once ratified by the pope. 

And even if it was so, those who attend a SSPX Chapel (as I am assuming you do), are NOT "giving that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority". Perhaps, those attending and supporting the FSSP, or Institute of Christ the King, could argue that they are giving only a "prudential and conditional assent in favor of ones' superiors with the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination". Think Cardinal Burke and the like . Not the separatists groups following +Lefevbre, Pax Vobis.
Logged

Offline drew

  • Supporter
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #177 on: January 06, 2018, 05:01:52 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on January 04, 2018, 01:30:43 PM
You're just plain wrong, Drew.  Promulgation is not the dogma itself.  It's the object of the promulgation and also of our faith.
Ladislaus,

Your reply, five pages later, is a gross misrepresentation of what was said by myself and Rev. Scheeben.

"Hence the original promulgation is the remote Rule of Faith (i.e.: Scripture and Tradition), and the continuous promulgation by the Teaching Body is the proximate Rule (i.e.: Dogma)." 
Scheeben, Manual of Catholic Theology
 
The word "promulgation" is applied univocally to God's revelation and the Church's infallible judgment of that revelation.   In this quotation from Scheeben, if you deny that the "promulgation" by the Church's "Teaching Body" is Dogma, then you deny that the "promulgation" by God is divine revelation.
 
You have two grave errors that were addressed in your original post:
1) You indirectly deny dogma is divine revelation when you correctly admit that the ultimate rule of faith is divine revelation and then deny dogma as the proximate rule of faith.
2) You claim that the Magisterium is Extrinsic to the faith, that is, extrinsic to divine revelation.  This implication of this error are manifold and lead to a corruption of the term magisterium.
 
Scripture and Tradition are the remote rule of faith and Dogma is the proximate rule of faith because Dogma is divine revelation formally defined constituting the "formal object of divine and Catholic faith".  The very definition of truth is the conforming of the mind to reality and there is no more certain reality than Dogma.  In these confusing times, any Catholic even of the most modest talents can keep his head above water if this truth is fully recognized.  Any Catholic even of the most exalted talents will not if this truth is denied.
 
Unless your goal in posting is to conform the mind to truth for the glory of God, "to learn wisdom without guile and communicate it without envy," then it is nothing but exercise in vanity.
 
Drew  
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #178 on: January 06, 2018, 06:12:59 AM »
^^^^ Very well said!
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #179 on: January 06, 2018, 10:58:13 AM »
Quote from: drew on January 06, 2018, 05:01:52 AM
You have two grave errors that were addressed in your original post:

Drew  

Again, you're just plain wrong.  Dogma is the object of the promulgation and of revelation and of divine faith; it is not per se the rule of faith.  You don't understand the terms involved.  Evidently you don't understand the difference between the object of faith and the rule of faith.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 67
« previous next »