Can something be universal and still be temporary? I think so. Universal simply means "of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases". The element of permanency in time is not what makes something "universal", but the element of affecting everyone.
An Ecunemical Council is ecunemical because the Bishops from the whole world are convoked under the presidency of the Pope, and the decrees of which, having received Papal confirmation, bind all Christians of the whole world.
Again, read Scheeben's article on the CE.
Cantarella,
You do not know what a
universal is. The definition you offer is the product of modern empiricism which traces its roots to the nominalism of William of Occam who denied that
universal have real existence.
Without the attribute of time, there is no such thing as a universal. Your definition is nominalistic.
The purpose of this post is not to educate you on this question but rather to say that anyone who does not know what a
universal is has no business making any comment on this question whatsoever any more than a blind person has driving a car. You are ignorant of one of the most fundamental truths of philosophy which is necessary for the proper comprehension of anything worth knowing. You are just like Ladislaus in that you make inexcusable errors of fundamental truths and then launch off drawing one erroneous conclusion after another.
You claim that the magisterium is your rule of faith and then when provided with a direct Magisterial quote from Pope Agatho addressing an ecuŠ¼enical council on the dogma proposed by Pope Adrian demanding that the assembled
"Fathers could not discuss the dogma, but must simply subscribe it as a rule of faith," you do not accept it and correct your error. The appeal to divine authority has no greater effect that the appeal to reason. Dogma as the proximate rule of faith is necessarily proven by the very canonical definition of heresy. You cannot see or will not see that this necessarily follows. Both reason and divine authority have no influence on you.
Your posts have been loaded with contradictions. When these have been made known to you, you never retract anything but in minor modifications to gloss over obvious absurdities. You call the magisterium the rule of faith then you say that the magisterium erred at Vatican II so it cannot be the magisterium and the pope cannot be the pope. How do you know the magisterium erred at Vatican II? You with Ladislaus have denied any appeal to Dogma as
"private interpretation" and therefore,
"Protestantism." You have no means by which to judge the magisterium of error. So how can you possible know? You have no means by which to accuse even Pope Francis of heresy. You cannot appeal to Dogma because Dogma condemns yourself as much as it condemns Francis.
The heresy of Modernism and Neo-modernism are nominalistic. They deny
universal. The end of both these heresies is the destruction of Dogma. You like the Modernists have a common enemy in Dogma. Since you do not know what a
universal is you end up denying Dogma because S&Sers have to throw Dogma aside. They have no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith, no moral compass, and what is worse, no material or instrumental means to ever get them.
St. Ignatius Loyola said in his
Rules for the Discernment of Spirits,
"The enemy conducts himself as a woman.... He is a weakling before a show of strength, and a tyrant if he has his will. It is characteristic of a woman in a quarrel with a man to lose courage and take to flight if the man shows that he is determined and fearless. However, if the man loses courage and begins to flee, the anger, the vindictiveness, and rage of the woman surge up and know no bounds." The internet affords a false sense of intellectual complacency with anonymity. The only thing I discern in your posts is a simmering "anger, vindictiveness and rage" because truth is getting in your way.
Drew
Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 440774 times)