Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium  (Read 9418 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline drew

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 332
  • Reputation: +1032/-179
  • Gender: Male
The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #90 on: February 03, 2017, 04:40:34 PM »
  • Thanks!7
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Clemens Maria
    Quote from: MyrnaM
    Quote from: drew

    Sedevacantists misunderstand this passage because they do not understand the Magisterium of the Church, and this is primarily because they make the pope the rule of faith rather than dogma.   In this quote Pope Leo is referring to the infallible Magisterium of the Church. This is clearly seen because he says, “If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”  The quote is referring to “its teachings.”  It is not the pope’s teachings.  The “its” refers to the Church’ teachings that is taken from the “deposit of divine revelation” which has already been entrusted to the Church.  “He who heareth you heareth Me” refers only to this infallible Magisterium of the Church because God cannot possibly be the “author of error in man.”

    Drew


    If anyone makes the pope the rule of faith it is YOU.

    This link might be of help to those who are confused about sedevacantism.  

    http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_scannell_05.html


    I take it that Drew is taking exception to the idea that the pope is the sole rule of faith?  In other words, he is accusing sedes of making the pope into a divinity.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The vast majority of sedes will affirm everything in Chapter 5 of W&S.  Thank you Myrna for posting that!  As explained there, "Hence the original promulgation is the remote Rule of Faith, and the continuous promulgation by the Teaching Body is the proximate Rule."  I assume that when Drew says that dogma is the rule of faith that he means that the original promulgation is the rule of faith.  But W&S contradicts that idea.  The rule of faith has a remote aspect as well as a proximate aspect.  So limiting the rule of faith to one or the other of those is wrong.  We have to affirm both.  If you accept that Francis is the Head of the Teaching Body (i.e. the Pope) then Francis is the proximate rule of faith for you and you owe him all the various levels of submission as outlined in W&S Chapter 5.  Obviously as a traditional Catholic that would be a major problem.  So how to resolve it?  Do we throw out centuries of Catholic theology and claim a right to be our own proximate rule of faith, a la Luther?  Or do we follow St. Robert Bellarmine and agree that a manifest heretic cannot possibly be a member of the Church and therefore neither can he possess any authority whatsoever in the Church?  I think the answer is obvious.  In 1988-91 Archbishop Lefebvre still held out some hope that maybe JP2 might reform himself.  But he admitted that there may come a time when we Catholics might have to admit that these post-V2 popes were not true popes.  I think that time has come.

    By the way, maybe it makes sense to be R&R now that Francis is heralding Martin Luther as a great figure of Christianity.  Maybe by resisting Francis you are actually affirming his teaching?  As for me, I think I will just stick to the SV thesis based on the teaching of St. Robert.

    You misunderstand Scheeban's article on the Rule of Faith.

    You err in making the pope your rule of faith.  You said,
    Quote from: Clemens Maria
    "If you accept that Francis is the Head of the Teaching Body (i.e. the Pope) then Francis is the proximate rule of faith for you and you owe him all the various levels of submission as outlined in W&S Chapter 5."
     
    This is a grave error in calling the pope the "proximate rule of faith." The honor belongs to Dogma.  The remote Rule of Faith is divine revelation found in scripture and tradition.  The proximate rule of faith is Dogma.  Scheeban does not contradict this but in fact reaffirms it repeatedly.

    Dogma is not the teaching of the pope, it is the formal definition by God of God's revelation to His Church exercised through the pope by virtue of the attribute of infallibility God has endowed His Church.  That is why Dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.

    Every sedevacantist group, every one excepting Br. Michael Dimond, makes this same mistake.  It is best exemplified in their belief that the good Jew as a Jew, the good Hindu as a Hindu, the good Muslim as a Muslim, the good Protestant as a Protestant, even the good pagan as a pagan can obtain salvation by their "desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes."  All of them, excepting Br. Dimond, believe that the Dogmas that affirm what is necessary for salvation, as necessities of means, may be reinterpreted by the pope to be understood by Catholics in a none literal sense.   It was good to see that An Even Seven repudiated this heresy, but what about you?  It is an error grounded upon holding the pope as the rule of faith, and from this error sedevacantism logically follows.  

    Quote from: Clemens Maria
    Quote from: Drew
    It is not “moot.” It is an acknowledgment on your part that it is not the heresy but the public scandal that removes the heretic pope from office ipso facto.  By what authority do you impose a canonical ipso facto penalty without due process?  Where did you obtain this jurisdiction?  Who made you the “lord of the harvest”?
     

    Drew, do you understand the meaning of ipso facto penalty?  No one imposes it but God.  If that were not so we would be in Stubborn's World where it is impossible for the a pope to actually lose his office.  Gee, I wonder if even a dead pope would lose his office because who has the authority to declare him dead?

    "This pope is dead."
    "Tisn't!"
    "Tis!

    Your reply is not well thought out at all.  Your claim that:
    Quote from: Clemens Maria
    "No one imposes ipso facto penalities but God"

    This is not true, for man also can and does impose ipso facto penalties for crimes of both human and divine law.  This is common even in secular criminal law.  

    God always imposes "ipso facto" penalties for every single sin, omission, and negligence.  When a mortal sin is committed in the internal forum, know only to God, the sinner is ipso facto formally removed from the life of grace, he is no longer a temple of the Holy Ghost, no longer has a right to heaven, and if he dies unrepentant, will be lost eternally.  This sinner may still be a material member of the Church.  In fact, there is no mortal sin where God uniformly ipso facto materially ends Church membership and this includes heresy.

    The same ipso facto penalty applies to formal heresy in the internal forum, which is a moral sin.  God does not removed a heretic materially ipso facto from the Church.  That is done by men in consequence of the human law of the Church. When a heretic is materially removed from the Church it is not because of the heresy per se but rather because of the scandal to the faithful.  There are numerous examples of Modernist heretics not being materially removed from the Church during and since the time of St. Pius X. When the heretic is materially removed from the Church it is always done as a consequence of the human law of the Church.  Penalties that remove a heretic materially from the Church that are applied ipso facto still require canonical due process determination of guilt.  Martin Luther was formally removed from the Church by God when he committed the mortal sin of heresy.  He was materially removed from the Church by churchmen only after the excommunication following the due process of a formal canonical trial.  

    The parable of the Cockle has been previously mentioned.  The commentaries of Lapide, Haydock, and St. Thomas all include heretics among the cockle.  In the parable God keeps the cockle until the harvest.  The arguments on this question concern the right of the Church to remove the heretical cockle before the harvest if in her judgment it is better for the faithful wheat.  None have argued that the Church must always and necessarily materially remove a heretic from the Church.  When it is done, it is done for the welfare of the faithful.

    Sedevacantists have made themselves the "lord of the harvest."  The hold the pope as the rule of faith and claim that any faithful associated with him materially is formally contaminated.  This is to believe that Jesus Christ formally sinned by being materially associated with the heretic Caiaphas the high priest by participating in Temple worship.

    So Clemens, you belong to a Church that has no pope, and no hope of ever getting one.  The Church founded by Jesus Christ was built upon Peter the first pope and we know by divine and Catholic faith that Peter will have "perpetual successors."  Those that do not regard Dogma as the rule of faith have no problem with taking this Dogma in a non-literal sense.  

    Drew  



    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #91 on: February 03, 2017, 09:25:42 PM »
  • Thanks!7
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: drew
    Whenever the popes are speaking of the infallible Magisterium, they are referring to the teaching of the pope when he engages the attribute of infallibility that Jesus Christ endowed His Church

    Magisterial Citation please?

    This is by definition.  Common knowledge.

    Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: drew
     I think it is fair to say that whatever a pope says or does, if he is indeed the pope, is an act of the “authentic (or authorized) magisterium.”

    It would not be fair but false. If the Pope errs in something it is not an act of the authentic magisterium because the Magisterium is infallible. Please provide a Magisterial citation that there is any KIND of Magisterium that can err.

    I have already provided you with an authoritative quotations by a theologian considered to be the best of his time by Fr. Fenton defining the term "authentic magisterium" which is a relatively new theological term.  I have already provided you with authoritative theologians regarding the possibility of error in the authentic ordinary magisterium where the pope teaches by his grace of state.  Still you make the same error again and again and again.  I can only provide you with the information.   I cannot make you read it.  I cannot make you understand it.

    Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: drew
    If the pope is the rule of faith, obedience becomes unconditional, therefore, all Catholics must obey the pope.  Since the pope commands what is unconscionable, therefore, Catholics cannot obey the pope, therefore, he is not the pope.

    If this is what you think the SV argument is based on then you need to study. The claimant is not the Pope because of his manifest heresy/apostasy before his election. It’s not because of what he commands, it’s because of what he believes. One cannot be Catholic and publically do and teach what these men believe. Vatican II taught heresy to the universal Church and Paul VI used solemn dogmatic language. That was an outward manifestation of his beliefs and those of whom were in attendance and agreed upon it.

    This is an admission that you have made yourself the "lord of the harvest."

    Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: drew
    When did the pope, with the same solemnity that Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, define that “every man has a right to whatever religion they want” as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith?

    Quote from: Paul VI
    Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae:
    “PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD(in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians), TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY...9.The things which this Vatican Synod declares concerning the right of man to religious liberty… this doctrine on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation(he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church); with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved sacredly by Christians...12.The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God(he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church), and when it promotes it…EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US(in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority) BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”


    You  know next to nothing about the Church's magisterium and what you do know, you have twisted. This is additional evidence.  Equating this document to the Ex Cathedra definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Pope Pius XII engaging the Extra-ordinary Magisterium of the Church to dogmatically define this doctrine, demonstrates that you have no idea what the Magisterium is or how it is exercised.

    Furthermore, your quote of the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty, is improper for at least two important reasons.  Firstly, the document is not even a decree claiming to be "dogmatic" within the context of the council.  It is professed to be a merely pastoral decree admitted by all both during and after the council.  Secondly, your quote taking out of context with the intention of implying that the document is claiming that doctrine of Religious Liberty has its source divine Revelation.  That is false. The entire paragraph cited says:

    Quote from: Vatican II, On Religious Liberty
    9. The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be are fully known to human reason through centuries of experience. What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously. Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions. It gives evidence of the respect which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God and it gives us lessons in the spirit which disciples of such a Master ought to adopt and continually follow. Thus further light is cast upon the general principles upon which the doctrine of this declaration on religious freedom is based. In particular, religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith.

    The decree in fact denies that Religious Liberty is directly found in divine Revelation and admits that the doctrine is deduced as an implication from the "dignity of the human person in its full dimensions."  This is nothing other than churchmen teaching by their grace of state and nothing more.
     
    Lastly, the Dogma from Vatican I infallibility states that the Church must intend to "define."  In this document there is no formal definition and nothing is proposed as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.    

    To imply or argue that this document is a papal claim to be invoking the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (which is infallible) is an act of deception.  To suggest that this document is equivalent to Pope Pius XII's definition of the Assumption may be evidence for declaration of brain death.  What it does clearly demonstrate is that you believe the pope is the rule of faith for there is no other premise from which anyone could conclude that these two papal acts are equivalent.  You must believe that the pope himself is the determining factor and not the act.  Again, that is making the pope the rule of faith.

    Quote from: Aneven Seven
    Quote from: drew
    I admit, as I have already admitted, that Pope Pius XII used the term “ordinary magisterium.”  It is unfortunate because he is not talking about the “ordinary magisterium.”

    Unfortunate for you that is, because it proves you wrong.
    Quote from: drew
     
    Vatican I said:
    Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

    So what do think about the word, “perpetual”?  What does it mean?  The word is derived from the “from Latin perpetualis, from perpetuus continuing throughout, from perpes, perpet- continuous.” (Oxford)

    Well if perpetual meant having a Pope every single second from Peter on, this statement from Vatican I would be false. So it must mean something else. It is clear from the context, it is talking about the office of the Papacy.

    Who has claimed that "perpetual successor" means "having a pope every single second from Peter on"?  But no matter how long a papal interregnum has been, at most a couple years, there has always been an intent from the death of one pope to the confirm his successor and always a mechanism to do so.  Never has there been a situation where there exists no efficient cause nor instrumental cause to create a pope.  Never has an interregnum lasted beyond a couple years.  It is now 60 years since John XXIII's election and after 60 years you still have nothing to hope for.  You are at a dead end.  

    There are examples in nature of perpetual events with long periods for recurrence such as some forms of radioactive decay or planetary rotation but to called "perpetual" these periods must recur at regular and predicable intervals.  Nowhere in the history of the "perpetual successors" of Peter has there been an interval of 60 years with no  hope of resolution over the horizon.

    What you are doing again is the corruption of Dogma twisting its clear meaning of words.  This is what those who make the pope the rule of faith always do. They consider Dogma as general theoretical guide lines or approximations of truth that can be interpreted in a non-literal sense to serve the theological ends of whoever is playing "lord of the harvest."

    Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: drew
    How many years does it take to break “continuity”? Can you give any secular historical example “perpetual succession” is claimed to have been maintained after a period of sixty years of vacancy?

    At least one Vatican I theologian seemed to think that there is no limit on an interregnum and that it doesn’t affect Perpetual Succession.
    I was wondering if you can give a historical example of Catholics calling the Pope a heretic and claiming he is still in the Church. Or if you could give an example of people refusing obedience and submission to a lawful Pope. Ridiculous!

    This answer is absurd.  A "theologian seemed to think" that the papal office could be indefinitely vacant and still have "perpetual succession"?
       
    Pope Honorius was formally declared a heretic and no one ever suggested he lost his office.  Caiaphas was a heretic and Jesus Christ never declared that he lost his office.  

    Still you have no understanding regarding how acts of obedience are morally regulated after being told several times.  

    Quote from: Aneven Seven

    Quote from: drew
    It is only “necessary that the Pope be a Catholic and not a heretic” if the pope is the rule of faith.  You deny this repeatedly and then affirm in the next breath.

    WHAT!!!!! This statement made me laugh literally out loud. If you could only see how ludicrous this is. The Church has ALWAYS taught that a heretic is NOT a Catholic. I think you need some quotes.

    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
    “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”

    Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
    “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.

    ”Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
    “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

    Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
    “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”

    Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:
    “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

    Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
    “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

    St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

    St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
    "This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

    St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."

    St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

    The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p.
    456: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female
    [as Pope] would be null and void."

    This has been address repeatedly and you add nothing new.  Formal heresy will formally remove a Catholic formally from the Church just like every mortal sin.  Heresy can, but does not necessarily, remove a Catholic materially from the Church.  You have already admitted that a heretic in the internal forum alone would not lose his office.  The implications of this are lost on you.  The removal of a heretic materially from the Church is done so because of scandal and not because of the heresy per se and this removal is possible but not necessary.  A heretic that is removed materially from the Church is done so by the human law of the Church which imposes ipso facto penalties by law that can only be imposed after due process determination of guilt.  The law imposes the penalty, the law does not impose the guilt.

    Quote from: Aneven Seven
    Quote from: drew
    Pope Honorius was declared by an ecumenical council to have been a heretic and this declaration was approved formally by the pope.  The “gates of hell” did not prevail except in the minds of those who held Honorius to be the rule of faith.  Once again you showing your bad principles.


    First, it is argued whether or not Honorius was heretic or failed to stamp out heresy. The CE article on him explains it well.

    Second, The 3rd Council of Constantinople never declared that he retained his office or lost it. So there’s that.

    I’m sure if Honorius would have declared to the Church that Christ only had one will, instead of only discussing with the Patriarch of Constantinople, the faithful would have considered him to fall from office. That’s because all Catholics everywhere from the beginning of the Church were taught that heretics are not part of the Church.

    It does not matter what you are "sure" of.  Honorius was formally declared a heretic by an ecumenical council that was affirmed by the pope.  This act, by your understanding councilaar and papal acts, is infallible.  He was never during his life or after considered by anyone to have lost his office.  No legitimate papal act of Honorius was ever considered null because of loss of office due to heresy.  It did not happen.  This is the only precedent for formal heresy in a pope and no loss of office.

    Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: drew
    Sedevacantism is a theology of despair.

    SV is not a theology. It is a term coined to describe the interregnum currently befalling the Church. It is based on Dogma that Heretics are not a part of the Church.  

    Quote from: drew
    You have no idea the meaning of magisterium,

    The Magisterium is the Church’s office of its Teaching Authority and it is unable to err, and until you can prove from the Magisterium that it can err, you have lost the battle against Church Teaching.

    Quote from: drew
    you have no idea how the attribute of indefectibility is preserved,

    It is preserved by the authority of Christ. The Church will not ever be overcome by heretics, which are the Gates of Hell.

    This is correct regarding the Magisterium for Christ's Church.  It is an error to claim that sedevacantism is not a "theology."  Its theology has brought you to a church that is not the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ, was founded upon Peter and his "perpetual successors."  Your church is lacking this necessary attribute.  You did not end up at this dead-end by definition.

    Have you considered a name for your church?

    Quote from: An even Seven
    Second Council of Constantinople:“… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”

    If a heretic were the leader of the Church of Christ then the Gates of hell have most literally prevailed.

    Quote from: drew
    By what authority do you impose a canonical ipso facto penalty without due process?

    This never ceases to amaze me. You clearly have no idea what an ipso facto penalty is. It means it is incurred by that very fact. Before any sentence. A hearing and sentence may proceed, but that is only to declare what has ALREADY happened.
    Here is Pope Pius VI  
    Auctorem fidei:47. "Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.

    Clearly a personal examination does not need to happen for the excommunication to happen. That is, for the person to be outside the Church. Here is St. Robert explaining it quite nicely.

    St. Robert Bellarmine: "For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the Body of Christ.”  

    Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law:
    “There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the faith.”

    These laws are human laws of the Church.  Ipso facto penalties are imposed by law upon the guilty.  Lacking a public charge of heresy and an admission of guilt, the determination of guilt requires due process in the external forum for penalty of law to be imposed.

    You have made yourself the "lord of the harvest."    
     
    The essential problem for you is that you belong to a church that is manifestly not the Catholic Church.  You have no pope, you will never get one, and therefore the church you belong to is not Catholic because the Catholic Church will always have "perpetual successors" to Peter.  To achieve this end you have corrupted what the Magisterium of the Church is.  You have made the pope the rule of faith by taking his personal teaching by his grace of state and given these teachings the marks of infallibility in direct opposition to the Dogmas on infallibility which establish the criteria for infallible teachings.
     
    I don't think you are stupid but there is clear evidence that you are unknowledgeable on very important matters, poorly educated, and unable to examine any problem outside a fixed and determined perspective.  I have only entered this discussion with you for the benefit others. As I said before no one can be reasoned from a position that did not reasonable assume.  Still, you should at least know that the church you belong to is not Catholic.  That is clearly evident and here is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  Sedevacantism is a theology of despair. You think a heretical pope means the "gates of hell have prevailed."  Just another example of drawing conclusions that do not necessarily follow.  I would only believe this if I belonged to a church in which its necessary attributes were not nor could ever be present.  The only question I have is which more often comes first, the despair or the sedevacantism.

    Drew  





    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8782
    • Reputation: +3463/-720
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #92 on: February 04, 2017, 04:19:01 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: drew

    So Clemens, you belong to a Church that has no pope, and no hope of ever getting one. The Church founded by Jesus Christ was built upon Peter the first pope and we know by divine and Catholic faith that Peter will have "perpetual successors."  Those that do not regard Dogma as the rule of faith have no problem with taking this Dogma in a non-literal sense.  

    Drew  


    That's the bottom line.
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8782
    • Reputation: +3463/-720
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #93 on: February 04, 2017, 07:47:03 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: Pax Vobis
    Quote
    •"It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Infallibility



    Pope Pius IX, Ineffibilis Deus"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”    
    Ok, you believe, I assume from your quote from the CE, that this is the only thing written in this Bull, that is infallible. Let’s take a look at just some of the other quotes.
    “…the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate…”
    Can we believe that the Father did not prepare for His only begotten Son, a Mother in whom His Son would become Incarnate? Or is this infallible?
    “The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth”
    Can we believe that the Church is not the pillar of truth and that it is directed by some other force than the Holy Spirit? Or is it infallible?
    “For such dignity and authority belong to the Church that she alone is the center of truth and of Catholic unity.”
    Can we believe that the Church is not the only center of Truth and Catholic unity? Or is it infallible?

    My point is, if you don’t know, that just because a statement of a Pope does not have all the Ex Cathedra language of a solemn definition, does not mean it is not infallible or requires a “conditional assent” as drew puts it.
    The Popes also from time to time, reiterate a Dogma already clearly defined, or explain the finer points of a Dogma. It is just as infallible. That means we can in NO way dissent from these teachings. This does not mean that every word of a Pope is infallible, or even that every word in a document which he uses his Solemn Judgement and defines a Dogma is infallible. It only means that the Pope is exercising the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium to teach what the Church already believes.


    FWIW.......The first quote in red is infallible via an ex cathedra pronouncement, that is, a solemn teaching of the Church's Extraordinary Magisterium. The other quotes are infallible via the Church's Ordinary Universal Magisterium........
    Quote from: First Vatican Council

    For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.


     
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #94 on: February 04, 2017, 06:47:05 PM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: drew
    I have already provided you with an authoritative quotations by a theologian considered to be the best of his time by Fr. Fenton defining the term "authentic magisterium" which is a relatively new theological term.  I have already provided you with authoritative theologians regarding the possibility of error in the authentic ordinary magisterium where the pope teaches by his grace of state

    I did not think you could prove your erroneous belief. That, not only do you not have any Magisterial teaching to back your claims, but you consider theologians part of the Magisterium. This shows your hypocrisy, that you are more willing to accept what a theologian says as Authoritative than what you consider a Pope says.

    Your replies are nothing more than bromides that are endlessly and mindlessly repeated by sedevacantists.  It is hoped that having arrived in a church that is missing a necessary attribute of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ that you might try to rethink the problem but you have not thought about anything.  You don't argue, you just repeat slogans.  This reply is just parroting the same erroneous understanding you have of the meaning of the word "magisterium."  

    The theologian quoted was to provide a definition of the term "authentic magisterium."   You have been misusing the term constantly in your posting.  Now you are asking for a "Magisterial teaching" to prove that the definition of the term "authentic magisterium" is correct!  And because this, which does not exist, was not provided it "shows (my) hypocrisy."  

    Getting your definitions correct is the first job you have to address before you can even try to reason.

    The second theologian with Fr. Fenton was to provide you with an expert opinion that teachings of the authentic ordinary magisterium, that is, the pope teaching by his grace of state have in the past and may in the future contain error and therefore admit of a "prudent" and "conditional" acceptance.  Your bromide reply: It is "hypocrisy .... more willing to accept what a theologian says as Authoritative than what you consider a Pope says."  

    This reply is not just stupid, it is totally disconnected from what in fact was said.  It is a mindless reply.

    Quote from: Aneven Seven
    Quote from: drew
    Furthermore, your quote of the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty, is improper for at least two important reasons.  Firstly, the document is not even a decree claiming to be "dogmatic" within the context of the council.  It is professed to be a merely pastoral decree admitted by all both during and after the council.  Secondly, your quote taking out of context with the intention of implying that the document is claiming that doctrine of Religious Liberty has its source divine Revelation.  That is false.

    The decree in fact denies that Religious Liberty is directly found in divine Revelation and admits that the doctrine is deduced as an implication from the "dignity of the human person in its full dimensions."  This is nothing other than churchmen teaching by their grace of state and nothing more.
    Lastly, the Dogma from Vatican I infallibility states that the Church must intend to "define."  In this document there is no formal definition and nothing is proposed as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.    

    First, a decree does not have to claim to be dogmatic for it to be so. Show where the Magisterium says it has to. Let me add that to your list of made up  "teachings".
    Second, If a council claims something is of Divine Revelation (DR), and especially if the Pope declares it through his apostolic authority to the whole Church, it is infallible. Vatican II explicitly says in DH #9” this doctrine on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation” and in #12” The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God” I understand that you don’t want to admit it but it’s right there. And for you to say that it actually denies that it’s part of DR, is a lie.
    Lastly, Proclaiming that something is part of DR, definitely constitutes infallibility in this circumstance. You have no valid response. Paul VI uses his apostolic authority and declares to the whole church that Rel. Lib. Is part of DR.
    He is telling “catholics” that Rel. Lib. Is included in the Rule of Faith. You are making yourself the rule of faith by making up different rules, then contradicting them, about what is infallible. You said before that only the Canons in Trent were infallible. You skipped my question as to why that is. Then you claim that DH isn't infallible because it say it was Dogmatic. Then you tell me that the right to religious liberty is not to be considered infallible because you say it didn't intend to define. Rel. Lib. is not part of DR but Paul VI clearly taught that it is. He is saying that it was handed down from God and has always been believed. This is just as authoritative as the Canons in Trent were Paul VI actually the Pope.
    You are all over the place and only want to consider infallible what fits your narrative.

    Oh brother!  Where to begin.  Another bromide.  Another mindless parroting of sedevacantist canned answers.  You are like a talking doll with a handful possible answers, just pull the string and see what you get.  You should begin be reading the Dogma from Vatican I on infallibility with the purpose of trying to understand it.  I do not know of any Dogmatic definitions that begin by saying "This is a Dogma."  A Dogmatic definition gives evidence of itself by meeting specific criteria.  You must learn what those criteria are.

    Vatican II never defined any doctrine and proposed it as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Dogma requires a formal definition on faith and/or morals with the intent to bind all the faithful for all time.  This intent of Vatican II to define doctrine was explicitly denied by the pope who called the council and the pope who closed the council.  After the council there were statements from Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict XVI that no dogma was defined in the council.  Not only was it not done, there was not expressed intent ever to do so.  Lacking intent, it is impossible to engage the Church's attribute of infallibility.  

    Of the 16 documents, two are called "dogmatic constitutions" and the others are "decrees" or "declarations."  The document on Religious Liberty (DH) was called a "declaration."  The term "dogmatic" that was incorporated in two council texts is used in the same sense that Ott entitled his book, Dogmatic Theology.  Neither of these texts defined any doctrine as a formal of divine and Catholic faith.  They produced no Dogma.  Still the two constitutions establish the foundational principles that justify all the decrees and declarations that followed.

    My complaint is that you took a quotation from DH out of context to imply that the teaching for Religious Liberty was from "divine Revelation."  This is lie and now reply by repeating the lie. You are an ass if think anyone has to listed to your distortions.  

    Rather than reply again to you, which is clearly wasted effort.  I invite anyone else to compare your claim with the actual text of paragraph nine.  The declaration describes what is means by "roots in divine Revelation" and that description says explicitly that this novel doctrine is not taught in divine Revelation but extrapolated from what is calls, "dignity of the human person in its full dimensions."

    From this paragraph you argue that DH has the same authority as the Extra-ordinary dogmatic degree of Pope Pius XII on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary!  Those who say, as you have, that DH claims that Religious Liberty is of divine Revelation are liars that intentionally distort the text out of context to deceive others.  

    Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: drew
    But no matter how long a papal interregnum has been, at most a couple years, there has always been an intent from the death of one pope to the confirm his successor and always a mechanism to do so.  Never has there been a situation where there exists no efficient cause nor instrumental cause to create a pope.  Never has an interregnum lasted beyond a couple years.  It is now 60 years since John XXIII's election and after 60 years you still have nothing to hope for.  You are at a dead end.

    Who says that Pope Pius XII didn’t intend to have a successor confirmed or that a single clergyman can’t elect a new Pope. The Cardinals haven’t always elected a Pope, nor has it always been clear how a certain Pope was elected.  What has to be ABSOLUTELY true is that the Pope elected had to have the Catholic Faith prior to their election as per Dogma and “Cum Ex”.

    So you have a "single clergyman" to "elect a new Pope."  Good. Do it. It has been tried plenty of time since Vatican II.  There must have been at least a dozen papal claimants.  Which of these is your Pope?  There is Michael I, two different Peter II, Gregory XVII, Gregory XVIII, Leo XIV, Innocent XIV, Alexander IX, Pius XIII, Clement XIV, Mathurin I, Linus II, etc., etc. Innocent XIV was elected after an international conclave of sorts. He walked away when the plan failed to gather any support.  So which of these is your pope?  If none, why not?  Again, these are rhetorical questions.  The point is that even if a group a sedevacantists got together and elected a pope he will not be received by other groups of sedevacantists.  That is the historical record over the last sixty years.  

    Heresy is the rejection of Dogma.  So since nearly every single sedevacantist holds that the pope is the rule of faith and that inconvenient Dogmas, such as that which says that there will always be "perpetual successors" in the Chair of Peter, need not be believed, how can a sedevacantist ever produce a pope when they are heretics by definition?  Again, just a rhetorical question.  Don't bother trying to answer.  

    Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: drew
    What you are doing again is the corruption of Dogma twisting its clear meaning of words.  This is what those who make the pope the rule of faith always do. They consider Dogma as general theoretical guide lines or approximations of truth that can be interpreted in a non-literal sense to serve the theological ends of whoever is playing "lord of the harvest."

    That is not true. Dogma is the rule of faith not some guideline. You are making a straw man here. I adhere to Dogma while you claim that you are the arbiter of what Dogma is. I wish I could say what you consider Dogma and Infallible but your guidelines change so much, it's impossible. If you don’t like the response you're given, you claim, it’s not infallible, or imply that a Theologian is the rule of faith.

    You do not even know what Dogma is! How is it then possible that it could be your rule of faith? Don't bother replying.  The question is rhetorical because you cannot possible answer it. You are unable to distinguish between the authority of DH from Vatican II and the Extra-ordinary dogmatic declaration of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  That being said, any answer would only confuse you more.  

    Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: drew
    This answer is absurd.  A "theologian seemed to think" that the papal office could be indefinitely vacant and still have "perpetual succession"?

    “We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy.  In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created.  There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”(Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882)
    Fr. O’Reilly spoke after Vatican I and was said to be considered the most important Theologian of his time. So it’s not absurd to think an Interregnum could last a very long time, nor is it contrary to any Dogma.

    I do not know Fr. O'Reilly but if your reference is accurate and not out of context as  you did with your reference to DH, what possible authority is this!  When you read an article by Fr. Fenton in AER you will typically find references to a dozen or more expert theologians on both sides of any given question.  In his article on the authority of papal encyclicals he references more than thirty different expert theologians of varying opinions.

    Now this reference to some unknown character who postulates that if during the GWS there had been no pope at all, it would not mean that the "perpetual succession" had been lost. This is empty speculation.  Empty because it never happened.  Empty because even if it had, there still was a hierarchy present with the intent and power to select a pope.  You have neither!  Therefore you do not have an efficient and/or instrumental cause capable of creating a pope.  For you the "perpetual succession" to the chair of Peter is broken!  You cannot fix it.  The church you belong to is without an essential attribute that Jesus Christ endowed His Church.  The church you belong to is not, and cannot be, His church!    

    Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: drew
    Pope Honorius was formally declared a heretic and no one ever suggested he lost his office.  Caiaphas was a heretic and Jesus Christ never declared that he lost his office.

    No one ever suggested that he retained his office. Were you there? Did the Council ever relate what the common thought was? Was Honorius’ heresy public and manifest?
    To Caiaphas. Was he a heretic? Where is the evidence for that? What Church Dogmas did he deny? Evil and Sinful? Yes. Heretic? I don’t know and neither do you.

    Because, if Honorius had lost his office, all his papal acts would have had to have been corrected. Never happened.  That is the historical proof that he never lost his office.  Honorius was formally declared to have been a heretic by an ecumenical council that was approved by the Pope.  This act was both public and manifest which is the appropriate response to the crime.  

    Caiaphas was a Sadducee.  We know from scripture that the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the body. We also know that they only accepted the Pentateuch for scriptural authority.  That is why when the Sadducees presented the speculative theological problem of the multiple marriages to Jesus answered correcting their error with a reference from the Pentateuch.  The denial of the resurrection of the body was a heresy.  It is a doctrine directly affirmed by St. Martha to our Lord.  Jesus affirmed that the rulers "sit on the chair of Moses" and therefore they were to be obeyed but not imitated. Still, when the man born blind was disobedient to the rules for proclaiming Jesus as a prophet and expelled from the Temple, Jesus rewarded his disobedience to the legitimate rulers by seeking him out to reveal to him His divinity.    

    Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: drew
    Formal heresy will formally remove a Catholic formally from the Church just like every mortal sin.  

    Wow. Every mortal sin removes a Catholic from the Church? It’s amazing that you imply I’m so uneducated about Catholic Teaching and yet say things like this.
    Not every Mortal sin removes one from the Church. Here is an extension of the quote already provided.
    Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corp. Chris.:”For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.”
    No sin, no matter how GRAVE, severs a man from the Church as does heresy etc…  He goes on to teach what happens when one is in mortal sin but still in the Church. That is, lose charity and divine grace, incapable of supernatural merit. Then says, but they are not deprived of all life implying that those in heresy etc… are deprived of all life. This has it’s basis in the Dogmatic Teaching that heretics are not in the Church.
    You are the opposite extreme of Stubborn. He doesn’t think that any sin can sever a man from the Church, you think all mortal sins sever a man. This is too much, how can I argue with someone who has total disregard for the teachings of the Popes and Dogma.

    You have already admitted that the sin of heresy in the internal forum would not remove anyone from their office.  In this you are correct.  So what does Pope Pius XII mean by saying that the "nature" of heresy, schism and apostasy to "sever a man from the body of the Church"?  If it were the "nature" of the sin as you understand it, then itself heresy whether in the internal forum alone or the external forum would both cases would cause both the formal and material separation from the Church.  It does not.  It is the nature of these sins to destroy the virtue of faith without which repentance is impossible.  That is the reason for the separation from the Church by these sins.
     
    But the problem is different when examined from either a legal perspective or a moral perspective.  From the legal perspective it is the human law of the Church the removes materially a heretic from the Church.  These human laws have an ipso facto penalty of excommunication.  The law imposes the penalty but the does not materially impose the guilt.  The guilt must always be materially proven through due process.  That is the nature of human law.

    From a moral perspective it  may be easier to understand.   The Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same.  The "soul of the Church" is the Holy Ghost.  The soul is coextensive with every living part of every body.  A Catholic in mortal sin no longer has sanctifying grace, no longer has the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, he is an enemy of God and has lost the right to eternal life in heaven.  He has lost God's friendship.  He is no longer is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.  He is a dead to the life of Christ.  So how is still a member of the Church since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ?   Every mortal sin formally removes a Catholic from the Church but not materially.  Just as a dead limb can still be part of a tree but the life of three is lost to the dead limb.  The dead limb is formally removed from the life of the tree but is not materially removed.  When the sin does not attack the virtue of Faith, the Church does not materially exclude the sinner from the Church.  Schism, heresy and apostasy are sins against the virtue of Faith.  They like all mortal sins formally separate the sinner from the Church.  If the heresy is only in the internal forum, perhaps known only to a confessor and God, there is no ipso facto material separation from the Church. These sins by their nature can but not necessarily lead to material separation from the Church. It is the nature of these sins that when they are in the external forum they can lead to the Church to materially separate the heretic for the sake of the faithful.  If heresy in and of itself always and everywhere caused material separation then the Church would not be invisible because sins of the internal forum unknown to all but God.  It therefore is the nature of heresy, apostasy and schism to materially separate the sinner from the Church because they attack the virtue of Faith.  That is the normal natural course of development but this is not absolute, it is not a necessary result.  The moral and legal cause of material separation from the Church is the good of the Faithful and not the heresy itself.

    I do not expect any reply from you on this question.  You only have a fixed slogan for a pat answer.  

    I do not pretend to have definitive answers to these questions but my understanding of this question is in accord with Catholic dogma, principles of moral theology, and Church law and they do not lead to conclusions that a clearly and manifestly offensive to Catholic Faith.

    You cannot say the same.

    Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: drew
    A heretic that is removed materially from the Church is done so by the human law of the Church which imposes ipso facto penalties by law that can only be imposed after due process determination of guilt.  

    Every time you talk about “ipso facto” penalties you show your ignorance of it more and more. Ipso facto and a penalty imposed after due process are opposite from each other. Ipso facto excommunicates by the act of the violation. This is done before due process or else it would have no meaning. If the act required due process, ipso facto could not be applied. This is easily understood if one were to only read the quotes provided before.
    We are not trying to determine whether these claimants are heretics based on what we think they believe in their hearts. No one could do that so that assertion is irrelevant. They manifested their heresies through word/deed before their election and have done so ever since their false elevations.

    Ipso facto laws will lead to immediate formal excommunication but not material excommunication.  You already admitted this when you agreed that a heretic in the internal forum alone would not lose his office.  For a legal ipso facto penalty to be imposed by the law in the external forum for heresy requires determination of guilt.  The same is true for secular criminal laws.  For example, a state may have a law that if a gun is used in an armed robbery then a mandatory sentence of ten years is imposed by the law.  These laws impose ipso facto the penalty for the crime but they do not do so until there is a due process determination of guilt.

    These laws are human laws of the Church.  God has bound them in the internal forum but God does not always see that the criminal is brought to human justice.  

    Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: drew
    Have you considered a name for your church?

    Catholic.
    How about you? Maybe the sometimes-catholic church? The fifth-pillar-catholic church? The material-catholic church? The defective-catholic church? The unable-to-legitimately-govern-because-the-pope-is-a-heretic-catholic church?
     
    Your church cannot be the Catholic Church.  You have no pope.  As they say, 'better a leg that limps than no leg at all.'  

    Many saints and theologians have speculated that the Church would recapitulate in her life the life of Christ on earth.  Jesus said that He was the "light of the world."  And so He is.  He then said that his Church would carry on this light after his Ascension.  He told them that they would be the "light of the world."  On occasions there were those who were scandalized by the doctrine and cross of Jesus and left him.  In his passion it was nearly everyone.  The Church seems to me to be still in the Garden of Olives where we say the first collective decision of the Apostolic College, "they all fled."  Sedevacantism is just one a several directions to flee.  But all those who have made the pope their rule of faith will fail this trial.  

    Quote from: An even Seven
    Quote from: drew
    Lacking a public charge of heresy and an admission of guilt, the determination of guilt requires due process in the external forum for penalty of law to be imposed.

    Then ipso facto has no meaning. If a Catholic hears another Baptized person saying that there are three Gods in the Trinity, even though he says he knows the Church teaches that there are three persons in One God, do we have to say that this statement is orthodox and this person is a Catholic until a court says that the statement is heretical and that person a heretic. Or can we say that statement is heresy and that person a heretic? This person is ipso facto severed from the Church without any further official Church Statement. That is, by that very fact. Therefore, he is unable to become Pope because he is not Catholic.

    Take another witness with you to correct their error.  If they will not hear either of you, take them to the Church.  If they will not hear the Church then let me treated as the heathen and the publican. If the Church will not correct them, you have done all you are morally required to do.  You do not have the authority to do what the Church has failed to do.  You want to make yourself the "lord of the harvest." The pope is your rule of faith and since you reject his rule, you want to usurp an office that is not yours.  You want to determine and enforce your own canonical process.  You are a thief.  You are scandalized by their sin a do not have the patience to suffer the cross. The cross that God offers, you reject.  Like the disciples in the Garden, you have fled.  But don't pretend to what you have fled is the Catholic Church.  You are not one, you are not holy, you are not catholic, and you have no pope.  And without your "pope," you have lost your rule of faith.

    This reply is not intended for you.  It is for anyone else who might think that the temptation of sedevacantism is an answer to the crisis in the Catholic Church.

    Drew    




    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #95 on: February 04, 2017, 08:32:11 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Correction:
    If heresy in and of itself always and everywhere caused material separation then the Church would not be VISIBLE because sins of the internal forum unknown to all but God.

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #96 on: February 05, 2017, 06:06:35 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote from: An even Seven
     
    Quote from: drew
    I do not know of any Dogmatic definitions that begin by saying "This is a Dogma."  A Dogmatic definition gives evidence of itself by meeting specific criteria.  You must learn what those criteria are.

    You said:” Firstly, the document is not even a decree claiming to be "dogmatic" within the context of the council.”
    This implies that a decree has to claim itself to be dogmatic for it to be so. It doesn't matter anyway because it meets Vatican I's definition for Ex Cathedra.

    Hardly the point. Vatican II published two "dogmatic constitutions" which contained no Dogma.  The point was that DH, a pastoral "declaration" never ever made this pretense.

    Quote from: An even Seven

    Quote from: drew
    Vatican II never defined any doctrine and proposed it as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Dogma requires a formal definition on faith and/or morals with the intent to bind all the faithful for all time.  

    If the council declares that something is of divine revelation and has not been defined up to that point, then yes, it intends to define. V II taught that Religious Liberty is part of Divine Revelation. You’re ignoring this. You merely give your canned answers that you learned from the “society”.

    Quote from: drew
    My complaint is that you took a quotation from DH out of context to imply that the teaching for Religious Liberty was from "divine Revelation."  This is lie and now reply by repeating the lie. You are an ass if think anyone has to listed to your distortions.

    You better be careful. After this statement people might begin to see who you really are.
    The language is extremely clear in DH. Rel. Lib., according to the “council” is of Divine Revelation.  

    Quote from: drew
    Rather than reply again to you, which is clearly wasted effort.  I invite anyone else to compare your claim with the actual text of paragraph nine.  The declaration describes what is means by "roots in divine Revelation" and that description says explicitly that this novel doctrine is not taught in divine Revelation but extrapolated from what is calls, "dignity of the human person in its full dimensions."

    I invite anyone to do so also. I also hope that they will not ignore paragraph 12 like you have done. This is where is gives the meaning of what is said.
    ” In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation.”
    Faithful to the TRUTH of the Gospel? In accord with DIVINE REVELATION? Uh Oh…looks like V II is teaching to the entire “church” that Rel. Lib. can be found in the Revelation of God and the Holy Ghost is the Author of it.

    Quote from: drew
    Those who say, as you have, that DH claims that Religious Liberty is of divine Revelation are liars that intentionally distort the text out of context to deceive others.

    Those who say, as you have, that DH does not claim that Religious Liberty is of Divine Revelation either haven’t read the text, are incapable of comprehension, or have as their motive the destruction of souls.  
    Do you believe it’s the infallible teaching of the Church that Religious Liberty is condemned?


    Quote from: Dignitatis Humanae, Pastoral Declaration on Religious Freedom, Vatican II

    9. The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be are fully known to human reason through centuries of experience. What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously. Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions. It gives evidence of the respect which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God and it gives us lessons in the spirit which disciples of such a Master ought to adopt and continually follow. Thus further light is cast upon the general principles upon which the doctrine of this declaration on religious freedom is based. In particular, religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith.
    12. In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation. Throughout the ages the Church has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received from the Master and from the apostles. In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm.
    Thus the leaven of the Gospel has long been about its quiet work in the minds of men, and to it is due in great measure the fact that in the course of time men have come more widely to recognize their dignity as persons, and the conviction has grown stronger that the person in society is to be kept free from all manner of coercion in matters religious.

    No one is claiming that Vatican II did not teach heresy.  What is denied is that heresy was ever formally imposed as an object of divine and Catholic faith and that any novelty was claimed to be part of the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church.  It is a repeated fact of history that any intent to define or impose as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith doctrine was denied by every single councilar principle before, during and after the Council. All three of these are necessary to formulate DOGMA.

    You  have claimed that DH is equivalent to the dogmatic declaration of Pope Pius XII on the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  To defend this absurdity you took a quotation out of context from paragraph 9 on three occasions.  Now you add to your folly by taking a quotation from paragraph 12.  

    In paragraph 9, what is claimed to "have its roots in divine revelation" is the "dignity of the human person."  This is true and confirmed in scripture and tradition and the divine liturgies in both East and West such as, "O God who hast wonderfully formed man's exalted nature, and still more wonderfully restored it." From the psalms, "Who hast made him (man) a little less than the Angels..." The paragraph specifically says that "Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious."  It affirms from the "dignity of the human person" that "religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith."  No novelty is claimed to be grounded in divine revelation.

    In paragraph 12, says, "In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation" and concludes that, "nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm."  

    What is affirmed from apostolic tradition is that "no one is to be coerced into the faith." This is the constant teaching of the Church that no one can be forced to accept the Catholic faith. It is affirmed in the document regarding the Jews which the Church applied all throughout the middle ages, Sicut Judaeis non, published by St. Gregory the Great.  No one was to harm them, but they were not to be forced to convert, they were to be given no positions of cultural influence, they were not permitted public worship  in Catholic lands.

    The novelty of Religious Freedom is the doctrine that the dignity of the human person is so great that he is entitled by God his creator to ignore His revelation and disobey His commandments. That novelty is nowhere affirmed in these citations and no claim to this novelty is made from divine revelation.  Nowhere in this citation it is affirmed that any person possesses a right to practice a false religion.

    You take citations clearly out of context to support you ideology.  You corrupt the Dogma of infallibility by denying the Dogmatic necessity for definition of doctrine and Dogmatic intention to bind, and lastly you  corrupt the meaning of "magisterium" by conflating the Ex-Cathedra declaration of Catholic Dogma of the Assumption with a "pastoral declaration"  which again evidences that you have no idea what the word "magisterium" means.

    This bizarre  corruption can only be due to stupidity or malice.  It follows from making the pope the rule of faith.  You belong to a church that has no pope and will never get one, so you have lost your rule of faith which is reduced to sedevacantist slogans which you repeat like a magical mantra.

    Drew  



    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1257
    • Reputation: +1265/-64
    • Gender: Female
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #97 on: February 07, 2017, 11:07:40 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • This video is very informative and relevant.

    Fr. Hesse explains why Vatican II is Not A Council of the Church
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15a18baebd9a18f3?projector=1

    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16