Author Topic: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)  (Read 1696 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tornpage

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Reputation: +63/-39
  • Gender: Male
Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
« Reply #15 on: September 11, 2017, 02:55:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm not sure what "like" means. I used what you provided, which shows the self-negating position of Williamson, rendering the rest crap as well, but THEN you change the terms again.

    Man, I'm really getting that bad feeling again.

    By the way, CIRCULAR LOGIC doesn't end. Sound logic always does. That what conclusions are.

    All you.

    I'm out.

    Take care.
    Never changed the terms. 
    Take care - I'll miss ya. 
    "Assuredly the infinite power of God is not bound by anything; all things obey it as so many passive instruments. In regard to this external principle, therefore, we must inquire which one of all the means in His power Christ did actually adopt."

    Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum

    Online DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2210
    • Reputation: +526/-515
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #16 on: September 11, 2017, 02:58:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Never changed the terms.
    Take care - I'll miss ya.

    That settles it.
    "Lord, have mercy".


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7600
    • Reputation: +2810/-414
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #17 on: September 11, 2017, 03:09:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • DZ,

    I like your logic in Reply #1. That doesn't end things - as logic unfortunately rarely does - because the "pernt" of the thread was this:




    True of false?

    If false, please cite the theologian or the magisterium.



    The "true or false" was not a call for the CI disputers to opine but merely a set up for the "please cite the theologian or the magisterium." That's a definitive line in the sand drawn  by Bishop Sanborn.

    Bishop Stubborn cited V1. The upshot being the bishops in union with the pope can teach error if it wanders from the promise of the Holy Ghost. The way I'm feeling now, that rolls like a wheel with a flat tire on a bumpy road, but anyway . . .
    The pope, or the pope and the bishops are the Hierarchy, they most certainly are NOT the Ordinary AND Universal Magisterium - which most certainly IS infallible.

    That being the case, there is no promise of infallibility attributed to the hierarchy except when they teach what the Church has always taught - aka the Ordinary AND Universal Magisterium. The Hierarchy are people, as such, can, do and obviously, have taught error. Per V1, the only person who is guaranteed infallibility is the pope, and then only under certain, exacting criteria as detailed at V1.

    That SHOULD be clear enough - but as per usual, not likely, thanks in large part to certain "well respected" 19th and 20th century theologians whose teachings people take as infallible Church teachings.

    If people will forget the errors they've learned and rely strictly on the clear teaching from V1 in this matter, that should be all anyone needs to see that like most people, both bishops have a felonious idea of what the Ordinary AND Universal Magisterium is, which is why they disagree on this.
    Do not be afraid to abandon yourself unreservedly to His loving Providence, for a child cannot perish in the arms of a Father Who is omnipotent.

    St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3033
    • Reputation: +3739/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #18 on: September 11, 2017, 03:11:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sede's say:

    If the pope confirms a council, then it's infallible.
    V2 contained errors, therefore it can't be infallbile.
    Therefore, Paul VI who confirmed the council wasn't a pope.

    The correct statement is:

    If the pope confirms a council, AND if the council contains solemn statements which fulfill the requirements of V1, then it's infallible,
    V2 contained errors AND it did not issue any solemn statements, therefore it can't be infallible.
    Therefore, V2 was not infallible.
    Therefore, the issue of Paul VI's papacy was not affected by the council.

    .
    Let's go ahead and grant, for argument's sake, that Vatican II (on the hypothesis that Paul VI was pope) wasn't an ecumenical council.  It was clearly an exercise of the ordinary magisterium: the world's bishops teaching in union with the pope.  So the problem doesn't go away, it's just shifted from one infallible source to another.  You still have to explain how the world's bishops all taught error in union with the pope.  The only way for that to make any sense is if there... was no pope.  Since the Church's infallibility is a diffusal of the pope's, neither the solemn nor ordinary magisterium are exercised during an interregnum. 

    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +63/-39
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #19 on: September 11, 2017, 03:12:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That settles it.
    Alright.


    I should have been clearer.


    Quote
    Quote
    Bishop Williamson's notion of the UOM, on the other hand, cannot be found in the book of any Catholic theologian or in the magisterium of the Church.


    True or false?

    I wasn't asking if Bishop's Williamson's position was true or false - I was asking if the highlighted portion was true or false: that's why I highlighted it in red and followed with the question.

    And the "miss ya." A genuine sorry you aren't going to join in. Not a "I don't give a sh--" miss ya.


    "Assuredly the infinite power of God is not bound by anything; all things obey it as so many passive instruments. In regard to this external principle, therefore, we must inquire which one of all the means in His power Christ did actually adopt."

    Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum


    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +63/-39
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #20 on: September 11, 2017, 03:15:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The pope, or the pope and the bishops are the Hierarchy, they most certainly are NOT the Ordinary AND Universal Magisterium - which most certainly IS infallible.

    That being the case, there is no promise of infallibility attributed to the hierarchy except when they teach what the Church has always taught - aka the Ordinary AND Universal Magisterium. The Hierarchy are people, as such, can, do and obviously, have taught error. Per V1, the only person who is guaranteed infallibility is the pope, and then only under certain, exacting criteria as detailed at V1.

    That SHOULD be clear enough - but as per usual, not likely, thanks in large part to certain "well respected" 19th and 20th century theologians whose teachings people take as infallible Church teachings.

    If people will forget the errors they've learned and rely strictly on the clear teaching from V1 in this matter, that should be all anyone needs to see that like most people, both bishops have a felonious idea of what the Ordinary AND Universal Magisterium is, which is why they disagree on this.
    Alright, forgetting the Sanborn/Williamson specific "he said" "he's wrong" aspect: do you agree that no theologian teaches that the bishops in union with the pope can teach error?
    "Assuredly the infinite power of God is not bound by anything; all things obey it as so many passive instruments. In regard to this external principle, therefore, we must inquire which one of all the means in His power Christ did actually adopt."

    Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum

    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +63/-39
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #21 on: September 11, 2017, 03:20:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Let's go ahead and grant, for argument's sake, that Vatican II (on the hypothesis that Paul VI was pope) wasn't an ecumenical council.  It was clearly an exercise of the ordinary magisterium: the world's bishops teaching in union with the pope.  So the problem doesn't go away, it's just shifted from one infallible source to another.  You still have to explain how the world's bishops all taught error in union with the pope.  The only way for that to make any sense is if there... was no pope.  Since the Church's infallibility is a diffusal of the pope's, neither the solemn nor ordinary magisterium are exercised during an interregnum.
    Exactly. 
    Any theologians teach that's possible period, or possible specifically if not in accordance with Tradition?
    "Assuredly the infinite power of God is not bound by anything; all things obey it as so many passive instruments. In regard to this external principle, therefore, we must inquire which one of all the means in His power Christ did actually adopt."

    Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum

    Online DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2210
    • Reputation: +526/-515
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #22 on: September 11, 2017, 03:22:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Alright.


    I should have been clearer.



    True or false?

    I wasn't asking if Bishop's Williamson's position was true or false - I was asking if the highlighted portion was true or false: that's why I highlighted it in red and followed with the question.

    And the "miss ya." A genuine sorry you aren't going to join in. Not a "I don't give a sh--" miss ya.
    IF<<< the reasoning is SOUND, (not just "valid", but "sound") then really think about this; how are you going to find SOUND, Catholic teaching that is at odds with it?

    In short, granting the "if", if you found a theologian backing W, then you should lose him as quickly as possible which means your question is moot.
    "Lord, have mercy".


    Online DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2210
    • Reputation: +526/-515
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #23 on: September 11, 2017, 03:24:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • IF<<< the reasoning is SOUND, (not just "valid", but "sound") then really think about this; how are you going to find SOUND, Catholic teaching that is at odds with it?

    In short, granting the "if", if you found a theologian backing W, then you should lose him as quickly as possible which means your question is moot.
    Disregard that quoted, as neither "bp" is now material to the discussion.
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7600
    • Reputation: +2810/-414
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #24 on: September 11, 2017, 03:26:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Alright, forgetting the Sanborn/Williamson specific "he said" "he's wrong" aspect: do you agree that no theologian teaches that the bishops in union with the pope can teach error?
    No, I do not agree.

    Do not be afraid to abandon yourself unreservedly to His loving Providence, for a child cannot perish in the arms of a Father Who is omnipotent.

    St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1248
    • Reputation: +882/-220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #25 on: September 11, 2017, 03:45:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Let's go ahead and grant, for argument's sake, that Vatican II (on the hypothesis that Paul VI was pope) wasn't an ecumenical council.  
    V2 was an ecumenical council, because ecumenical means ALL cardinals were present.  But just because it was an ecumenical council does not mean it was infallible.  These 2 terms are mutually exclusive.

    Quote
    It was clearly an exercise of the ordinary magisterium: the world's bishops teaching in union with the pope.
    It's debatable whether the ordinary magisterium actually agreed with itself.  Does a simple majority, democratic vote constitute a consenus of theological opinion?  I'd wager, no.  The V2 rules of procedure were unlike any ecumenical council in history.  This alone serves to warn all catholics that it wasn't a "normal" ecumenical council.

    But, even playing devil's advocate, let's say a 51-49 vote on one of the erroneous documents constitutes an exercise of ordinary magisterium.  So what?  The ordinary magisterium is only infallible if it follows the same protocols of V1:  the teaching must be 1) on faith and morals, 2) clearly expressed as a matter of faith to be believed, 3) binding on the faithful.  It must also agree with Tradition.

    Quote
    So the problem doesn't go away, it's just shifted from one infallible source to another.  You still have to explain how the world's bishops all taught error in union with the pope.  The only way for that to make any sense is if there... was no pope.  Since the Church's infallibility is a diffusal of the pope's, neither the solemn nor ordinary magisterium are exercised during an interregnum.
    The ordinary magisterium (i.e. hierachy) is only infallible if it agrees with Tradition.  This makes the ordinary magisterium's teachings ordinary AND UNIVERSAL.  If such teachings are theoretical or novel, then they aren't UNIVERSAL, they are just ordinary, ergo, they are fallible.
    "There's nothing new under the sun".  If it's new, it ain't Catholic.


    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +63/-39
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #26 on: September 11, 2017, 04:26:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, I do not agree.
    Care to name - or better, quote - one?
    "Assuredly the infinite power of God is not bound by anything; all things obey it as so many passive instruments. In regard to this external principle, therefore, we must inquire which one of all the means in His power Christ did actually adopt."

    Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum

    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +63/-39
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #27 on: September 11, 2017, 04:44:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Conflation, regardless of the Yeshiva think, namely "teaching new doctrine" vs. "teaching contrary to what must be held with divine and Catholic faith."

    Also, is it the TEACHING CHURCH or not?

    I can't believe this thread is still going.

    The whole thing is predicated upon Williamson's Psychedelic "Logic", which is demonstrably a fail, as usual.

    What am I missing here Torn?
    Right.

    The CE on the Infallible Magisterium:


    Quote
    Infallible magisterium

    These are the pope and the bishops, as successors to St. Peter and the Apostles. The promise of Divine assistance was given together with the command of teaching; it rests, therefore, in the same subjects, but is restricted to official, to the exclusion of private, acts regarding the deposit of faith.

    The official activity of teaching may be exercised either in the ordinary, or daily, magisterium, or by occasional solemn decisions. The former goes on uninterruptedly; the latter are called forth in times of great danger, especially of growing heresies. The promise of Divine assistance provides for the integrity of doctrine "all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:20). From the nature of the case it follows that individual bishops may fall into error, because ample provision is made when the entire teaching body of the Church and the supreme pastor in particular are protected by Providence. The "Ecclesia docens", as a whole, can never fall into error in matters of faith or morals, whether her teaching be the ordinary or the solemn; nor can the pope proclaim false doctrines in his capacity of supreme pastor of the universal Church. Without this prerogative, which is known by the name of Infallibility, the Divine promise of assistance would be a fallacy. To the right of teaching on the part of the "Ecclesia docens" naturally corresponds the obligation of hearing on the part of the "Ecclesia discens". Hearing is meant in the sense of submitting the understanding, and it is of a double nature, according as the teaching is, or is not, done under the guarantee of infallibility. The former submission is called assent of faith, the latter assent of religious obedience.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm
    "Assuredly the infinite power of God is not bound by anything; all things obey it as so many passive instruments. In regard to this external principle, therefore, we must inquire which one of all the means in His power Christ did actually adopt."

    Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3033
    • Reputation: +3739/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #28 on: September 11, 2017, 04:50:28 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • V2 was an ecumenical council, because ecumenical means ALL cardinals bishops were present invited.  But just because it was an ecumenical council does not mean it was infallible.  These 2 terms are not mutually exclusive.
    .
    I fixed a few things for you!  I'm assuming my corrections are what you meant to say (I wasn't going to correct "present" to "invited" but given your emphasis on the word "all" it seemed prudent to so correct).
    .
    At any rate, an ecumenical council is certainly infallible.  That's what distinguishes it from provincial and smaller councils where only a few bishops and not the pope get together to discuss some thing or another.  Infallibility doesn't protect just the Church of Antioch, or of Carthage, or of Rheims.  It protects the whole Church.  Any individual Church can err (as we see being the case frequently throughout the centuries). 
    .


    Quote
    It's debatable whether the ordinary magisterium actually agreed with itself.  Does a simple majority, democratic vote constitute a consenus of theological opinion?  I'd wager, no.  The V2 rules of procedure were unlike any ecumenical council in history.  This alone serves to warn all catholics that it wasn't a "normal" ecumenical council.

    .
    There is no, and will never be, any question about the ordinary magisterium "agreeing with itself." The ordinary magisterium is, by definition, what the world's bishops teach in union with the pope.  It's distinguished from the extraordinary magisterium because it's how they usually teach (by letter, oration, publication, etc.-- as opposed to all gathering together at once, which is extraordinary).  Theologians all say that a moral unanimity suffices to show what the ordinary magisterium teaches; and this makes sense, given that until the Internet, it would literally be impossible to discern an absolute unanimity.  A moral unanimity suffices.  I think nearly three thousand bishops approved Vatican II texts.  Less than seventy-five did not, and some who did not only did not simply because they weren't there.  That's a moral unanimity if there ever was one.  In either event, when they left, a moral unanimity interpreted the documents in an unorthodox sense.  Only further reinforcing what, on the hypothesis that Paul VI was pope, the Church's ordinary magisterium thinks of Vatican II. 
    .

    Quote
    But, even playing devil's advocate, let's say a 51-49 vote on one of the erroneous documents constitutes an exercise of ordinary magisterium.  So what?  The ordinary magisterium is only infallible if it follows the same protocols of V1:  the teaching must be 1) on faith and morals, 2) clearly expressed as a matter of faith to be believed, 3) binding on the faithful.  It must also agree with Tradition. The ordinary magisterium (i.e. hierachy) is only infallible if it agrees with Tradition.  This makes the ordinary magisterium's teachings ordinary AND UNIVERSAL.  If such teachings are theoretical or novel, then they aren't UNIVERSAL, they are just ordinary, ergo, they are fallible.
    "There's nothing new under the sun".  If it's new, it ain't Catholic.
    .
    The ordinary magisterium is infallible by definition.  It is what all the world's bishops teach in union with the pope.  If what we're describing is not a moral unanimity of bishops, or is not taught in union with the pope, then it's not the ordinary magisterium.  It's just something that a lot of bishops are doing.
    .
    The idea that the ordinary magisterium is only infallible when it agrees with tradition is fallacious.  Completely circular.  It makes infallibility out to be a synonym for being inadvertently right. 
    .
    Universal means in all places, not for all time.  If it meant for all time, then Trent goes out the window, and so does pretty much everything.  Given there's no way to verify all the things believed on day one anyways, so all of a sudden all of Catholicism becomes gnostic.  Universality in time is something that was misunderstood from the Vincentian canon (theologians have written about this; the SSPX idea of universality in time is the real novelty here).

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1248
    • Reputation: +882/-220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #29 on: September 11, 2017, 04:58:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The pope/bishops cannot 'teach' error.  But you must define 'teach', which, according to V1 means 1) a matter of faith and morals, 2) declared to be a matter of faith, 3) which must be believed by all the faithful.

    V2 did not 'teach'.  It proposed a new application of existing church teaching.

     

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