Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
No.  I just added a citation above.  It's because, IF (and it's highly debated) he did sign the formulae, he did so under duress, and it was not a free act (akin to the Paul VI was being blackmailed over sodomy position).

It was not an act of the Magisterium period.  At best it was a personal act.  Whatever he signed was in no way being taught to the Universal Church.
Same thing with Vatican II: 
Whatever is novel is ipso facto relegated to the level of the authentic magisterium, and to be equated with the public pronunciations of a private doctor.
That these counterfeit teachings use the organs of the Church to diffuse them adds to the deception, but is ultimately irrelevant.
What is relevant is that just as the general hierarchy followed Liberius (despite his teaching being non-binding), so too have they followed the conciliar popes (who have not lost their offices because of these heretical teachings, because they are opinions of private doctors publicly diffused).
If you want to then retort that a heretic cannot be pope, we are back to the same old Bellarmine/Cajetan/JST opinions that an heretical pope does not lose his office without the intervention of the Church vs the false sede interpretation of Bellarmine which pretends he loses it ipso facto even before the Church pronounces the defection.
12
Catholic Living in the Modern World / Re: Sitting out the election?
« Last post by Minnesota on Today at 07:19:10 PM »
No matter what they think, being "pro-life" except in cases of rape or incest does not make you pro-life. And never will. It's being pro-abortion with a veneer of fake charity.

To quote someone famous many years ago:

Quote
A child conceived through incest or rape is innocent and deserves the right to be born.
13
Uhm, he (and his predecessors) are clearly teaching Magisterially.  Their teaching is at least "merely authentic" Magisterium.
I am sad to see this thread has become mostly people talking past each other.

So here's an example from Amoris Laetitiae (#300). Sedes tend to say Amoris Laetitia teaches heresies, but beyond arguing whether there is or isn't heresy, shouldn't one consider how and to what extent something is conveyed?

Quote
If we consider the immense variety of concrete situations such as those I have mentioned, it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases”,335 the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.336
What exactly is magisterially taught to us here? There are no new rules, just an encouragement.
14
R&R has definitely made its bed with the Old Catholics and Gallicans.
15
Same thing with Vatican II.

It's nowhere close to being the same thing.  I'm glad that, from nearly-2,000 year history of the Church you could find ONE example to back up the R&R position.  Seems to me there would be more ... if it weren't for the fact that the Holy Spirit protects the Church.  Oh, yeah, of course, this is the same example that was brought up by the opponents of infallibility at Vatican I and was rejected by the Council Fathers.

Well, I take it back, if we eventually find out that Paul VI was being blackmailed, then perhaps they're the same thing.
16
...and the reason his infallibility was not involved was because it was an act of the authentic magisterium, not the OUM or EM.

No.  I just added a citation above.  It's because, IF (and it's highly debated) he did sign the formulae, he did so under duress, and it was not a free act (akin to the Paul VI was being blackmailed over sodomy position).

It was not an act of the Magisterium period.  At best it was a personal act.  Whatever he signed was in no way being taught to the Universal Church.
17
It's not just Daly.  It's been highly debated among Catholic scholars for a very long time.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm
...and the reason his infallibility was not involved was because it was an act of the authentic magisterium (not the OUM or EM). 

Nevertheless, according to your logic, it is impossible for 99% of the hierarchy to follow the pope into error (or the Church has defected).

Yet 99% DID follow the pope in this declaration, and the Church DID NOT defect).

Same thing with Vatican II.
18
When Pope Liberius signed a semi-Arian formulation (yeah, yeah, Daly disputes it, blah, blah...).

It's not just Daly.  It's been highly debated among Catholic scholars for a very long time.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm
Quote
It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved. It is admitted on all sides that his noble attitude of resistance before his exile and during his exile was not belied by any act of his after his return, that he was in no way sullied when so many failed at the Council of Rimini, and that he acted vigorously for the healing of orthodoxy throughout the West from the grievous wound. If he really consorted with heretics, condemned Athanasius, or even denied the Son of God, it was a momentary human weakness which no more compromises the papacy than does that of St. Peter.
Note that this Catholic Encyclopedia author implies that had he done so freely, it would have brought infallibility into question and would have "compromised the papacy".  But R&R say that an Ecumenical Council and Mass officially taught/promulgated to the Universal Church do not "compromise" the papacy.
19
Catholic Living in the Modern World / Re: Sitting out the election?
« Last post by Nadir on Today at 07:01:56 PM »

The  "life of the mother" exception, on the other hand, is an unfortunate phrase that can mean the same thing as Catholic double-effect, so it's not necessarily even "intrinsically evil".  It can be permissible to perform a procedure intending to preserve the life of a mother even if the death of the baby in the womb is a likely consequence, so long as the death of the baby is not the intended goal or means.

There is no "life of the mother" argument at all in the discussion about abortion, and double effect.

Here are so quotes from reliable sources. Yes even the first.

Quote
“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother.”
—Alan Guttmacher, former Planned Parenthood president
Quote
“There are no conceivable clinical situations today where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. In fact, if her health is threatened and an abortion is performed, the abortion increases risks the mother will incur regarding her health.”
—Dr. Bernard Nathanson, American Bioethics Advisory Commission
There is only one purpose for abortion—ending the life of the child. The “life of the mother” situation for abortion is simply bogus.
20
Huh?  When exactly has Arianism been taught by the Magisterium, merely authentic or otherwise?
When Pope Liberius signed a semi-Arian formulation (yeah, yeah, Daly disputes it, blah, blah...).
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10