Author Topic: Dogmatic and Pastoral (Read 8556 times)

SJB · « **Reply #45 on:** October 29, 2012, 09:08:47 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote
That type of omission can and has been grounds for condemnation.

Interesting. So far we have mostly talked in generalities. If you could, I would appreciate examples, one will do, of what proposition or passage in particular you would condemn and what censure exactly you would attach to it.

Also, regarding grounds for condemnation, there is a fundamental flaw in your argument. It is this - a Magisterial docuмent stands in a certain unique relation to theological opinions, whereas the writings of a layman can and may be judged even on merely the common or more probable theological opinion, the docuмents of the Magisterium on the other hand are not judged by them but are, as was said in Humani Generis, their very judge. From this the conclusion follows that the contravention of theologically probable opinions is insufficient to prove the sedevacantist premise. That's why I said a mere error won't do it, only formal heresy will. But apparently, you don't think there is heresy strictly speaking in the docuмents of Vatican II.

What I mean is, if some doctrine is regarded by theologians as more probable, yet an Encyclical contains what was hitherto regarded as the opposite and less probable doctrine, by that very fact henceforth, it is theologians who will revise their estimation of the status of the opinion or teaching in question. This is standard procedure, and I think it rather weakens your argument.

God bless.

If it's a Magisterial Docuмent. Isn't that what's at issue here? It was said to be merely pastoral, yet the actual docuмents say something entirely different. The council was meant to be confusing because that's how modernists proceed

I think you're trying to disprove sedvacantism instead of dealing with the reality of what Vatican II actually did and what the drafters of the docuмents actually meant.

Nishant · « **Reply #46 on:** October 29, 2012, 09:24:08 AM »

Quote from: SJB

If it's a Magisterial Docuмent. Isn't that what's at issue here? It was said to be merely pastoral, yet the actual docuмents say something entirely different. The council was meant to be confusing because that's how modernists proceed

I think you're trying to disprove sedvacantism instead of dealing with the reality of what Vatican II actually did and what the drafters of the docuмents actually meant.

In order to prove a docuмent purporting to be (and by all appearances so being) Magisterial to not in fact be so, the standards are higher than examining a random work and deciding what censure it would merit. Would you disagree? Saying it contains only errors though not heresies appears to me insufficient from the sedevacantist point of view.

From the non-sedevacantist point of view, the authentic Magisterium only requires an altogether prudential and conditional assent, as I quoted a source to prove, and in which the possibility of error is not altogether and absolutely excluded.

SJB · « **Reply #47 on:** October 29, 2012, 11:03:54 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

In order to prove a docuмent ...

Why do you think I'm trying to "prove" this? I merely said there have been official condemnations based on what was NOT clearly stated.