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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 23

Author Topic: The Heretical Pope Fallacy  (Read 44325 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46306
  • Reputation: +27254/-5037
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #180 on: January 06, 2018, 10:59:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on January 05, 2018, 03:39:00 PM
    Good idea. They seem to believe that their opinion is somehow binding. They're like little popes.

    Yes, the indefectibility of the Church in her Magisterium and Universal Discipline is indeed binding, and the infallibility of canonizations is also binding (that one proximate to faith but not optional).  You guys deny all these things.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46306
    • Reputation: +27254/-5037
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #181 on: January 06, 2018, 11:12:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • With natural truths, the rule of belief is intrinsic to the truth itself.  So, for instance, we recognize the truth of 2+2=4 because our intellects grasp the truth of it.

    When it comes to supernatural truths, these are by definition (see Vatican I) truths that can only be known through revelation, through the authority of God.  We do not grasp the truth of the Holy Trinity, for example, by virtue of its intrinsic truthfulness, because our minds are not capable of grasping it.

    Consequently, supernatural truth, the object of divine faith, require that we accept them on the authority of God, based on the truthfulness of God (see the Catholic Encylopedia article to which I linked).  This truthfulness of God is extrinsic to the truths themselves that are believed.

    While that truthfulness of God is the ultimate and absolute rule of faith, we required a more proximate rule to faithfully interpret WHAT it is that God has revealed.  And that proximate rule of faith is the Church, and in particular the Magisterium.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46306
    • Reputation: +27254/-5037
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #182 on: January 06, 2018, 11:14:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: drew on January 06, 2018, 05:01:52 AM
    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're failing to distinguish between the object of the promulgation and the promulgation itself, and in particular the authority behind said promulgation.
    Logged

    Offline drew

    • Supporter
    • **
    • Posts: 399
    • Reputation: +1122/-239
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #183 on: January 06, 2018, 02:32:45 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 06, 2018, 11:14:09 AM
    You're failing to distinguish between the object of the promulgation and the promulgation itself, and in particular the authority behind said promulgation.

    Ladislaus,
     
    Rev. Scheeben is giving a simple analogy to explain the distinction between the remote rule of faith and the proximate rule of faith.  Both the remote rule of faith and the proximate rule of faith are "promulgations" of divine revelation which is their formal objects.  Therefore, the formal cause in both cases is God, the "promulgator" which explains why the analogy works.  The difference is only in the material and efficient causes which are distinguished by the terms, "divine revelation" and "divine and Catholic revelation".  It's an analogy, not an identity and every analogy will have points of divergence.  The point to take from this is that the Rule of Faith, both remote and proximate, is divine revelation, the formal objects of faith.
     
    Rev. Scheeben may not convince you but my hope is that anyone reading this post will accept this important truth because without it every possible error is an open door.
     
    Drew
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #184 on: January 06, 2018, 02:45:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 06, 2018, 10:59:48 AM
    Yes, the indefectibility of the Church in her Magisterium and Universal Discipline is indeed binding, and the infallibility of canonizations is also binding (that one proximate to faith but not optional).  You guys deny all these things.

    I'm not denying what you state above, since I've not addressed it at all, and I could care less about it, really. I was simply making the comment that sedewhatevers tend to believe that their views and opinions are binding on everyone else, like they're little popes.

    You're the one making such distinctions regarding infallibility, and other things. Archbishop Lefebvfe did not, to my knowledge, make such distinctions. He avoided the modernists, called them out on their errors, and kept on with his mission, and he was quite prudent.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline drew

    • Supporter
    • **
    • Posts: 399
    • Reputation: +1122/-239
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #185 on: January 06, 2018, 03:31:48 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 06, 2018, 10:58:13 AM
    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
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14645
    • Reputation: +6032/-903
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #186 on: January 08, 2018, 04:37:15 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • "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.  




    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46306
    • Reputation: +27254/-5037
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #187 on: January 08, 2018, 09:08:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: drew on January 06, 2018, 03:31:48 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46306
    • Reputation: +27254/-5037
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #188 on: January 08, 2018, 09:10:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: An even Seven on January 08, 2018, 08:42:39 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.
    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2265
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #189 on: January 08, 2018, 10:23:51 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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...
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46306
    • Reputation: +27254/-5037
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #190 on: January 08, 2018, 11:11:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Read CE again, guys

    Quote
    the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself

    Not the TRUTH of God but the truthFULNESS of God, not what He revealed but His truthfulness in the revealing of it

    Quote
    the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith,

    extrinsic because the truth of revealed truths cannot be known intrinsically since our intellects cannot grasp them as intrinsically true by themselves without the authority behind them

    Quote
    the Church as the rule of faith:  The term Church, in this connection, can only denote the teaching Church

    the FAITH is not the RULE OF FAITH

    If some sources use the term faith loosely as rule of faith, it's because it's speaking of it materially rather than formally, just like you can consider faith materially as the propositions believed or formally as the supernatural virtue of faith

    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2265
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #191 on: January 08, 2018, 11:13:49 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • ...continued...A look at what V2 "really" binds us to (which is not much)...

    Look, I started out going through these docuмents, but I'm just not going to finish.  I've already got a headache from reading the first 2.  How many times does it say
    - "such and such CAN happen in the future".
    - "the faithful is INVITED to do x, y, or z".
    - "the Church will do a, b, or c in the future as an example of [Christ's love towards us] or some other nonsensical, non-related reason for actions a, b and c.

    The point is, V2 explains the REASONS for the Church to be "updated" from a govt aspect.  It argues WHY we need a liturgical "renewal" and the PURPOSE OF the changes in "pastoral approach" to people of different faiths, etc.  It's basically a long winded, overly verbose, flowery sounding argument on why the church needs updating and why the changes being made (they hadn't been made yet) are good.  But no one has to agree with the arguments!  No where does it command anyone to believe x, y or z!  This is the diobolical cleverness of it! 
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46306
    • Reputation: +27254/-5037
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #192 on: January 08, 2018, 11:25:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • To simplify, the faith is the WHAT believed while the rule is related to the WHY believed.

    What do I believe?  the Assumption.  Why do I believe it?  Because it was proposed as dogma by the authority of the teaching Church (proximately) and ultimately by God in revealing Himself (remotely).  So it's the proposal by the Church (viewed formally) that's the rule of what I believe.

    This is similar to the distinction between the faith itself (the contents of Revelation) and the faith viewed as supernatural virtue as moved by the formal MOTIVE of faith
    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2265
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #193 on: January 08, 2018, 11:45:17 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    You are assuming that those Councils were infallible because of their content which is wrong. They are infallible because they are an act of the Magisterium.

    V1 would disagree with you.
    Quote
    The Church decides what is contained in the Deposit of Faith. Those teachings on faith or morals are our Rule of Faith.
    Your previous post is also incorrect, and both are interconnectedly wrong.
    The Church decides what is contained in the Deposit of Faith - yes and no.  
    Yes - She does when there is controversy and She needs to re-affirm the clear teachings of the Faith.
    No - She does not have the power to issue NEW articles of faith, only to re-affirm, re-teach and clarify.

    The deposit of Faith was already handed down IN FULL by Christ to the Apostles.  It's sorta like a deck of cards.  Christ gave the Apostles the ENTIRE deck and each card represents an article of faith.  Each article of faith is what catholics learn and memorize to become catholic.  When a heretic or pagan comes along and says 'well, there's also a queen of rubies, in addition to the queen of diamonds', the Church says: "no, only 4 queens exist".  If someone asks, "well, what about the joker?  Is he part of the 52 cards?"  Answer: No. 

    Point is, the Church did not create the deck of cards, just as She did not create doctrine or the articles of faith - Christ did.  The Church did not create herself - Christ did.  So, the magisterium IS NOT the rule of faith, though she can make rulings.  She is the GUARDIAN of the faith, and the faith is composed of doctrine, ergo doctrine is the true rule of faith, because it existed BEFORE the Church, because Christ existed before the Church.  She cannot create, change or delete doctrine, therefore She cannot be "the rule" of our faith.

    Doctrine = rule of faith, because ALL doctrine existed before the Church.
    Church/magisterium = teacher of the faith, who can issue "rulings" when necessary. 
    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2265
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
    « Reply #194 on: January 08, 2018, 12:48:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Great points, AES.

    As with most things, this topic requires distinctions.  For example, after Vatican 1 defined infallibility, one could make the case (from a certain perspective) that "The Church has spoken" therefore infallibility is HER teaching.  Ok, that's true, in the sense that she taught the limits and circuмstances and details which we must believe.

    However, the overall perspective is that infallibility existed as part of scripture, and the 'primacy of peter' is a doctrine which Christ established long before the 1800s.  Mostly, the Church re-defined what was already a dogma.  But she also provided some more details of this dogma which are not in scripture and tradition, because it was necessary.

    So, the Church has a role to play in the question of the 'rule of faith'.  But her role is not primary but supportive.  The primary rule is doctrine.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 23
    « previous next »