Author Topic: The Solemn Magisterium (Read 2319 times)

pax · « **on:** January 12, 2010, 06:01:38 AM »

Quote from: CM

The Solemn Magisterium is the final say on any matter of doctrine and may never be lawfully opposed or dissented.

I can prove any dogma I want if I get to say who is and is not a member of the Solemn Magisterium.

For instance, suppose I say Popes Eugenio IV and Boniface VIII are heretics. What happens to the rigid interpretation of EENS?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** January 12, 2010, 10:06:12 AM »

Quote from: pax

Quote from: CM
The Solemn Magisterium is the final say on any matter of doctrine and may never be lawfully opposed or dissented.

I can prove any dogma I want if I get to say who is and is not a member of the Solemn Magisterium.

For instance, suppose I say Popes Eugenio IV and Boniface VIII are heretics. What happens to the rigid interpretation of EENS?

You don't get to give liberal post-Vatican II popes who kiss Korans the authority to contradict those who came before.

That's not about "you deciding" - None of us decided to make the post-Vatican II popes act in manifestly heretical ways.

CMMM · « **Reply #2 on:** January 12, 2010, 11:26:30 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: pax
Quote from: CM
The Solemn Magisterium is the final say on any matter of doctrine and may never be lawfully opposed or dissented.

I can prove any dogma I want if I get to say who is and is not a member of the Solemn Magisterium.

For instance, suppose I say Popes Eugenio IV and Boniface VIII are heretics. What happens to the rigid interpretation of EENS?

You don't get to give liberal post-Vatican II popes who kiss Korans the authority to contradict those who came before.

That's not about "you deciding" - None of us decided to make the post-Vatican II popes act in manifestly heretical ways.

Define 'Manifest Heretic' Then demonstrate how the Popes acted in such a fashion.

Pax makes the point that, authoritatively, he has as much power to denounce ANY pope as the sedevacantist does to denounce a V2 pope.

(At least, that is what I think he is trying to point out.)

CM · « **Reply #3 on:** January 12, 2010, 05:54:02 PM »

Illogical man. If you say Popes Eugene and Boniface were heretical antipopes, you have to demonstrate where they publicly contradicted the popes before them in dogmatic matters.

You can't just say it without substantiation.

CMMM · « **Reply #4 on:** January 12, 2010, 08:26:19 PM »

Quote from: CM

Illogical man. If you say Popes Eugene and Boniface were heretical antipopes, you have to demonstrate where they publicly contradicted the popes before them in dogmatic matters.

You can't just say it without substantiation.

How can you say for certain it is not Eugene and Boniface who were Heretical and in contradiction, and the correct 'position' is not that of the latter popes?

CM · « **Reply #5 on:** January 12, 2010, 08:33:36 PM »

So the Church for the first 1400 was wrong, wrong, wrong, and all they needed was "to open the windows of the Church to let in some fresh air"?

How, then, do you know it wasn't Luther who was right?
:plant:

CMMM · « **Reply #6 on:** January 12, 2010, 08:37:41 PM »

Quote from: CM

So the Church for the first 1400 was wrong, wrong, wrong, and all they needed was "to open the windows of the Church to let in some fresh air"?

How, then, do you know it wasn't Luther who was right?
:plant:

What do you call what you just did?

Straw Man? Ad Hominen? I have no idea about literary devices, but could you answer the question plainly?

CM · « **Reply #7 on:** January 12, 2010, 08:46:07 PM »

Reductio ad absurdum

Revealing the absurdity of your argument when taken to its logical conclusion.

CMMM · « **Reply #8 on:** January 12, 2010, 09:31:55 PM »

Quote from: CM

Reductio ad absurdum

Revealing the absurdity of your argument when taken to its logical conclusion.

What is the logical conclusion, and why is it absurd?

CM · « **Reply #9 on:** January 12, 2010, 11:21:12 PM »

Are you for real?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 12, 2010, 11:39:52 PM »

:roll-laugh2:

I am staying out of this one.

CMMM · « **Reply #11 on:** January 13, 2010, 06:36:13 AM »

It's seems you have difficulty answering the question plainly.

All I am requesting is your 'proof' that popes who came prior are not in error, and V2 popes are heretics.

Seem's like a fair question to me.

pax · « **Reply #12 on:** January 13, 2010, 07:31:59 AM »

Quote from: C.M.M.M

It's seems you have difficulty answering the question plainly.

All I am requesting is your 'proof' that popes who came prior are not in error, and V2 popes are heretics.

Seem's like a fair question to me.

And a question which he cannot answer without giving up his own heresy of Sedevacantism.

Indeed, how do you know that Luther was not right?

Is it not a heresy to say that you can buy your way out of Purgatory? Isn't that the sin of simony?

SJB · « **Reply #13 on:** January 13, 2010, 10:29:37 AM »

Quote from: C.M.M.M

Quote from: CM
Illogical man. If you say Popes Eugene and Boniface were heretical antipopes, you have to demonstrate where they publicly contradicted the popes before them in dogmatic matters.

You can't just say it without substantiation.

How can you say for certain it is not Eugene and Boniface who were Heretical and in contradiction, and the correct 'position' is not that of the latter popes?

Because of the indefectability of the Church and the dogmatic fact of their papacy.

CMMM · « **Reply #14 on:** January 13, 2010, 11:20:47 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: C.M.M.M
Quote from: CM
Illogical man. If you say Popes Eugene and Boniface were heretical antipopes, you have to demonstrate where they publicly contradicted the popes before them in dogmatic matters.

You can't just say it without substantiation.

How can you say for certain it is not Eugene and Boniface who were Heretical and in contradiction, and the correct 'position' is not that of the latter popes?

Because of the indefectability of the Church and the dogmatic fact of their papacy.

Their papacy is dogmatic fact?