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

Author Topic: The Heretical Pope Fallacy  (Read 98252 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline drew

  • Supporter
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #185 on: January 06, 2018, 03:31:48 PM »
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.

"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 objects of faith and the rule of faith are one and same: divine revelation.  You have already admitted indirectly that the remote rule of faith is divine revelation accepted on the authority of God. Why should you be surprised to discover that the proximate rule of faith is also divine revelation accepted on the authority of God?  If you give it some consideration, it makes perfect sense.  Jesus said, "I will not leave us orphans" and He has not.  We have dogma as our proximate rule of faith and although facing the greatest crisis in the history of the Church we are the best prepared.  Those that do not accept this truth that dogma is the proximate rule of faith necessarily corrupt the proper understanding of the Magisterium.    

Drew

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #186 on: January 08, 2018, 04:37:15 AM »
"III. The act of promulgation must be a teaching (magisterium), and not a mere statement; this teaching must witness to its identity with the original Revelation, i.e. it must always show that what is taught is identical with what was revealed; it must be a "teaching with authority" - that is, it must command the submission of the mind, because otherwise the unity and universality of the Faith could not be attained." - Scheeben

I entirely agree with Scheeben's idea of what the Magisterium is.  






Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #187 on: January 08, 2018, 09:08:45 AM »
The objects of faith and the rule of faith are one and same: divine revelation. 

You're using divine revelation equivocally ... which is the source of your error.  Revelation can be viewed materially as that revealed (the dogma) and formally as the act of revealing ... just as Catholic faith can be viewed materially as the content of the faith and formally as the supernatural virtue.  When we're looking at a RULE of faith we're primarily interested in the AUTHORITY behind it.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #188 on: January 08, 2018, 09:10:36 AM »
The Rule of Faith is the Teaching. It is delivered by the Magisterium.

False.  You're making the same mistake as drew.

Both of you simply need to read the article in Catholic Encyclopedia written by someone who knows what he's talking about.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #189 on: January 08, 2018, 10:23:51 AM »
Quote
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. 
Cantarella, why does it not apply?  I can guess 2 reasons: 

- First because you are assuming that V2 issued 'decrees' in the same way that previous ecuмenical councils issued decrees (it did not). 
This is an example of a decree:  (4th Lateran council, 1215 AD)

Quote
CANON 13
SUMMARY: The founding of new religious orders is forbidden. New monasteries must accept a rule already approved. A monk may not reside in different monasteries nor may one abbot preside over several monasteries.
Text. Lest too great a diversity of religious orders lead to grave confusion in the Church of God, we strictly forbid anyone in the future to found a new order, but whoever should wish to enter an order, let him choose one already approved. Similarly, he who would wish to found a new monastery, must accept a rule already proved. We forbid also anyone to presume to be a monk in different monasteries (that is, belong to different monasteries), or that one abbot preside over several monasteries.

Comment:  This is a decree, meaning it's a church law.  It is not infallible because it does not deal with faith/morals, but it is a legal decree.  It is clear, concise and binding (from a church law perspective).

- Here are other 'decrees' issued from various councils.  Both of these are infallible because they fulfill the requirements of V1 and deal with faith/morals.  These are clear, concise and binding (from a divine law perspective).
1.  Again, from 4th Lateran council, canon 1 (1st sentence only):

Quote
Text: We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple; the Father (proceeding) from no one, but the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Ghost equally from both, always without beginning and end.

2.  Trent, session VII:
Quote
CANON II.-If any one saith, that these said sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacramnets of the Old Law, save that the ceremonies are different, and different the outward rites; let him be anathema.
Second, because you are assuming that because all previous councils issued infallible statements that V2 must also be infallible, or it must have the same authority as all previous councils.
- Let's summarize V2's "decrees" and see what they actual force/bind us to.

... continued...