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 73609 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #190 on: January 08, 2018, 11:11:14 AM »
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


Online Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #191 on: January 08, 2018, 11:13:49 AM »
...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! 


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #192 on: January 08, 2018, 11:25:03 AM »
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

Online Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #193 on: January 08, 2018, 11:45:17 AM »
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. 

Online Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Heretical Pope Fallacy
« Reply #194 on: January 08, 2018, 12:48:18 PM »
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.