Author Topic: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)  (Read 1802 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Pax Vobis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1389
  • Reputation: +956/-287
  • Gender: Male
Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
« Reply #75 on: September 14, 2017, 03:52:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    The true origin of canonization and beatification must be sought in the Catholic doctrine of the worship (cultus), invocation, and intercession of the saints.
    Oh, so you find a sentence that says the word "doctrine" and you suppose it means its doctrinal.  What about the phrase "origin of"?  Does that not change the meaning of the sentence?
    Canonizations are not doctrinal.  They may be matters of faith, but it has nothing to do with doctrine.

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2934
    • Reputation: +734/-771
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #76 on: September 14, 2017, 03:55:01 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Lord, have mercy".


    Online Bellator Dei

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 779
    • Reputation: +336/-21
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #77 on: September 14, 2017, 04:04:22 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Oh, so you find a sentence that says the word "doctrine" and you suppose it means its doctrinal.  What about the phrase "origin of"?  Does that not change the meaning of the sentence?
    Canonizations are not doctrinal.  They may be matters of faith, but it has nothing to do with doctrine.

    You don't believe the intercession of the saints is a doctrine of the Church?
    Please pray for all of the holy souls in purgatory.

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1389
    • Reputation: +956/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #78 on: September 14, 2017, 04:09:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    but I wait for the Church to decide the matter in the future.
    Am I not supposed to be open to a decision of the Church in the future?

    Here's the situation we're in:
    Tradition teaches A, which is infallible.
    Multiple councils teach A (truth) and reject B (error), both using solemn infallible language.
    V2 proposes A (truth) and B (error) and also C (which is hybrid speculation of A mixed with B), and does so not using solemn language, nor satisfiying doctrinal requirements of V1.

    Catholics can accept A (truth) because these truths are already part of typical, catholic beliefs.
    Catholics reject B (error) because it has already been infallibly condemned.  Easy decision.
    Catholics reject C (hybrid truth + error) because the hybrid teaching is confusing and also ambiguous.  Because it's partially wrong, even if slightly, we reject it.

    The fact that neither B or C was taught infalliblily is reason that we do have to accept it, as a matter of faith, or under pain of sin.


    Pax said:
    Quote
    Ha ha.  God would not allow a pope to teach error ex cathedra.  Come on, really?

    Quote
    Mithrandylan said:  Sure, just not infallibly.


    This makes no sense, even if you're joking.  All ex cathedra statements are infallible, by definition.

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1389
    • Reputation: +956/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #79 on: September 14, 2017, 04:12:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    You don't believe the intercession of the saints is a doctrine of the Church?
    The intercession of the saints is a doctrine.  Whether or not St Peter is a saint is not.  It's a matter of faith. 

    This is TOTALLY besides the point.  St Peter's sainthood has NOTHING to do with the topic of Scripture and Tradition being the foundation of doctrine.


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3141
    • Reputation: +3827/-155
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #80 on: September 14, 2017, 04:14:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    This makes no sense, even if you're joking.  All ex cathedra statements are infallible, by definition.

    .
    It's literally what you've said regarding the ordinary magisterium (which, by definition, is infallible).
    .
    Quote
    The intercession of the saints is a doctrine.  Whether or not St Peter is a saint is not.  It's a matter of faith.
    .
    And what precisely do you mean by this?  When you say it's "a matter of faith?"  That it is de fide, i.e., Catholic doctrine, the denial of which entails mortal sin at a bare minimum?  Or that it requires a sort of blind leap of faith and trust in the Church who, for all we know, may be wrong on this point?
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1389
    • Reputation: +956/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #81 on: September 14, 2017, 06:25:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Pax said:
    All ex cathedra statements are infallible, by definition.


    Mithrandylan said:
    It's literally what you've said regarding the ordinary magisterium (which, by definition, is infallible).
    I've repeatedly said that there are different levels of the ordinary magisterium: 

    - There's the ordinary, fallible magisterium (which is fallible because it doesn't teach clearly or formally)
    - Then there's the ordinary and UNIVERSAL magisterium (which is infallible, because the pope (with or without the bishops) expresses a teaching in a FORMAL and clear way and which agrees with Tradition.)

    The exercise of the ordinary and UNIVERSAL magisterium is separate from a solemn, dogmatic decree, but it is similar in that 1) it must intend and be clear that it intends to be infallible, 2) its language must be formal, so there's no doubt that it is a formal teaching.
     
    You do not agree with the above, so let's just agree to disagree.

    ----
    Pax said:
    Quote
    The intercession of the saints is a doctrine.  Whether or not St Peter is a saint is not.  It's a matter of faith.

    Mith said:
    Quote
    And what precisely do you mean by this?  When you say it's "a matter of faith?"  That it is de fide, i.e., Catholic doctrine, the denial of which entails mortal sin at a bare minimum?  Or that it requires a sort of blind leap of faith and trust in the Church who, for all we know, may be wrong on this point?
    The point i'm making is irrelevant to our general discussion but what I'm distinguishing is between a doctrine, which must be held as a certainty of faith, and a matter "close to" the faith.  (I meant to say "close to" not "of the faith".  Sorry).  It's debated by theologians whether one must give the same assent of faith to a doctrine (i.e. intercession of the saints) vs a canonization, or other non-doctrinal, but related-to-doctrine, judgement from rome.

    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8075
    • Reputation: +2931/-498
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The UOM (Bishop Williamson v. Bishop Sanborn)
    « Reply #82 on: September 15, 2017, 05:24:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Utter nonsense.  You don't understand the Catholic theology behind this definition.  R&R injects this meaning into that passage in a self-serving way. 
    The teaching from V1:
    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 understand it perfectly, it is accurate to say that I disagree that the Catholic theology behind this definition means anything other than exactly what the definition means. IOW, the reason it is worded the way it is, is in fact driven by and is in perfect harmony with Catholic theology.

    Enter certain 19th/20th century theologians to tell us what it reeeeaally means, and the next thing you know people are accusing the teaching to mean what it does not say - just as if it were one of the teachings from V2!  

    As it is written, it's meaning is perfectly clear and yes, as such, it most certainly does serve R&R and kill SV - because it actually means what it actually says, no injection permitted or required by anyone - not even 19th / 20th century theologians. As it is written, it admits the reality that it is entirely possible that popes can teach new doctrines, i.e. error - notice that what it  does not say, is that popes cannot teach new doctrines. It does not say that.

    One absolutely *MUST* resort to certain "well respected" theologians' interpretations and explanations in order to determine that it does not actually mean what it actually says, because reading it without their unwanted, unneeded and just plain screwed up interpretations, it's meaning stands crystal clear on it's own, just as it was divinely designed to do. 
    When it is understood according to the Catholic theologians' theology behind it, then confusion, as is today's reality, leads to all sorts of wild ideas.





    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


     

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