CathInfo.com

So if someone in 1250 had denied the Immaculate Conception he would have been a heretic and outside the Church?

I am 100% with Pope Pius IX's teaching when it comes to this, he says we are obliged in conscience to submit to this and other teachings not solemnly defined which are contained in the ordinary and universal magisterium. According to the pope, we will be guilty of serious error, perhaps even heresy if we deny teachings contained in the ordinary and universal magisterium, even though they are not solemnly defined.

As for the fate of someone who denied the Immaculate Conception in 1250, I will repeat what the pope said regarding points of doctrine not infallibly defined, but "are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure."

One of the many reasons the pope solemnly defines a doctrine, is to erase all opposing opinions - for all time. None of the conciliar popes have ever attempted any such thing - except for JP2's decree prohibiting the ordination of women. 

PS -- nobody is saying that the Church's definition invented the dogma, just that it made it obligatory for faith and endowed it with the requisite absolute certainty required of supernatural faith.  In other words, it's the Magisterium which acts as the proximate rule of faith.

When you have a NO doctrine that Cantarella calls a "dogma of faith" and you say you believe the same as her (I'm speaking of this NO doctrine of whatever all the bishops in the world in union with the pope teach is infallible), that is exactly what you are saying.

You are saying that whatever they all unanimously teach, is infallible because a)they are the magisterium and/or b) whatever they teach becomes the magisterium. This is all entirely NO - but IF IT WERE IN FACT A DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH, then IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for them to EVER teach heresy because WHATEVER they teach is protected from error and is just as infallible of a teaching as the Immaculate Conception is - ergo, V2 and the NO is infallible and YOU are in heresy - that's IF this "totality doctrine" is indeed a dogma of faith, which it isn't.




 

You really need to stop posting, Drew.  You do nothing but embarrass yourself more with each post.

So St. Thomas was a heretic for not believing in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?  After all, it has always been dogma.  So if dogma is the rule of faith, then he was a heretic, right?

I assume that you would respond that it's because the dogma was not yet proximate to him, right?  At the time, that particular dogma was not the proximate rule of faith for him.

But, hmmmm, WHAT made it proximate to Catholics so that now denying it is in fact heresy whereas it wasn't proximate for St. Thomas and was not heresy for him?  Hmmmm.  Oh, yeah, right, the Church DEFINED it at some point.  Yes, the Church, indeed, the Pope.

So that, the Church's teaching and definition, is what turns dogma from the state of being non-heretical to reject to the state of being heretical to reject.  It's the Church's definition that is the PROXIMATE RULE that makes it heretical to deny it.

You at one point claimed that what "Proximate" meant for a dogma was that it was "close in time" to Revelation?    And you were dead serious.  No, proximate doesn't mean close in time to Revelation, but close to our intellects for belief ... the complete opposite of being close to the revealed truth.  Remote/Proximate are in relation to our acceptance of it and not in relation to God's revealing of it.  

So you have the basic TERMS under discussion here completely BACKWARDS and you have the hubris to lecture us about what they mean.

Ladislaus,
 
Time and again you make fundamental errors in essentials.  You do not even know the definition of heresy and yet you freely make it an accusation against others. Your entire post is nothing more than an effort to justify your repeated claim that the “Magisterium is the rule of faith.”  You did the same thing before when you claimed that the “Magisterium was not part of divine revelation.”  That colossal error had the same motivation.  Once again you are willing to sacrifice truth on the altar of your vanity.
 
Dogma is revealed doctrine defined by the Magisterium that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  It is the denial of Dogma that makes a baptized person a heretic.  This is the definition of heresy.  Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  Those that do not keep Dogma as the rule of faith are heretics. Since the definition can be transposed, it is an identity.  Heretics do not keep Dogma as the rule of faith. 
 
But you have perfectly corrupted this definition just as you corrupted the definition of supernatural faith.  You claimed that those who do keep Dogma as the rule of faith are heretics because as you said, in post #291:

"By appealing to DOGMA over the Magisterium, what you're really saying is that my, Drew's, INTERPRETATION of said DOGMA, TRUMPS the INTERPTATION OF THE MAGISTERIUM.  YOU ARE MAKING YOUR PRIVATE JUDGMENT YOUR PROXIMATE RULE OF FAITH." (sic)
Ladisalus

Dogma is the Magisterium giving definitive judgment on the definition of divine revelation.  Once given, it is immutable in both its form and matter.  Those who claim that Dogma must be 'reinterpreted by the Magisterium' are denying its immutability and thus its infallibility.  Accusing those who accept the Dogma as received from the Magisterium of entering into "private judgment" have no idea what Dogma is.  Your claim that the faithful who accept the literal meaning of Dogma are engaging in “private interpretation” of Dogma and therefore are “Protestants” which makes them “heretics,” is just another of your stupid Ladislausisms.

For St. Thomas the Immaculate Conception was a divinely revealed doctrine that had not been formally defined by the Church. It was for him a misunderstanding of the remote rule of faith, a formal object of divine faith. St. Thomas therefore was guilty only of material heresy because he misunderstood the remote rule of faith on this truth.  If St. Thomas were alive today and persisted in his denial of this Dogma, he would today be a formal heretic.
  
Ladislaus said:

“No, proximate doesn't mean close in time to Revelation, but close to our intellects for belief ... the complete opposite of being close to the revealed truth.  Remote/Proximate are in relation to our acceptance of it and not in relation to God's revealing of it.”
Ladislaus

Your explanation of the word “proximate” is, well, mindless.  “Proximate” is a relative term meaning closer in time or space to some comparative object.  It is only understood contextually contrasted with what is “remote.”  To use the term “proximate” to mean “close to our intellects for belief” is meaningless.  The remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition because they are the primary sources of divine revelation historically revealed in time.  Dogma is divine revelation that has been formally defined by the Church therefore its objective matter is the divine revelation that came before the definition in time.  Not only does proximate not mean, “close to our intellects for belief,” it does not mean, “close in time to Revelation” without a comparative term of what then is “remote in time to Revelation.”  Scripture, Tradition and Dogma are all parts of divine revelation and constitute the rule of faith. Dogma is revelation formally defined that occurs later in time.  The fact that Dogma offers greater clarity has nothing to do with "proximity."
 
As I said in the last post:
Should anyone be surprised that you do not know the definition of heresy?  After all, you are the one who did not know the definition of "supernatural faith."  Remember? I had to correct you on that one.  And, after all, you are the one who thought that the “Magisterium was not part of (the content) of divine revelation." And after that big mistake, you thought that the “Magisterium was not part of (the act) of divine revelation," an even bigger mistake.  You are the guy who did not even know what hylomorphism means and that if you split the form and matter of a material being you cause a substantial change.  From that big blunder you split the definition of faith dividing its two necessary attributes that make supernatural faith what it is.  And then you split the office of the pope dividing its form and matter and thought no one would notice that you destroyed it.

Since heresy is failure to keep the faith, and you do not even know what supernatural faith is or that Dogma is the proximate rule of faith, how could you possible know what heresy is?

You know what Ladislaus? All the S&Sers can get together and elect you as their pope and then everything you say will become necessarily true.
 
Drew

Don Paolo,

Why do you speak of Fr. Kramer in the third person? You ARE, Fr. Kramer. 

I don't really think he is trying to mask his identity at all. He already had posted this publicly on his Facebook page before he commented publicly about having posted it here. No need to get all aggressive about it. Especially when you consider that "Don" and the first name is the normal way of naming a priest in Italian.