The distinction you are not making is that the Church issues dogmas to CLARIFY the truths that have been around since the beginning.  It's not accurate to say that these truths could be denied in the past; it is only accurate to say they were not believed IN THE SAME LEVEL OF DETAIL that they are required to be now.

The protestants like to accuse the pope of issuing "new" dogmas.  Of course, the pope does not have the power to do so, nor does he actually do so, because the Church has TRADITION, which the Protestants reject.  ALL TRUTHS of the Faith have been around since Apostolic times.  It is only after the Apostles that the Church CLARIFIES and adds DETAILS to such Truths, as necessary, (usually when they come under attack from heretics).  But ALL TRUTHS have been around, and must be believed implicitly as part of our Faith.

Nice try, but the Immaculate Conception was defined ex cathedra.

Now please address the issue instead of dodging it. What was it, if not the defining of the dogma ex cathedra(i.e by the Extraordinary Magisterium), that made St. Thomas not a heretic but someone who denies the same truth today a heretic?

The dogma was defined, not invented. The Immaculate Conception of Our Lady always was one of the doctrines of the Church, it was never some new idea, some new concoction or pious innovation that the pope in union with all the bishops of the world decided to make a dogma. But that is how you and Cantarella and Lad preach the whole process works. Ridiculous!

Yes, all the bishops and cardinals petitioned the pope that it was finally time to actually solemnly define it, but it was already something the Church always and everywhere taught since the time of the Apostles. This is what it says in Ineffabilis Deus.

This doctrine was always taught and believed because this doctrine was and will always remain in the ordinary and universal magisterium - were it otherwise, it could not have been solemnly defined. Do you understand this?

This means that the certainty we have of the Immaculate Conception of Our Blessed Mother, whether defined ex cathedra or not, was, is and will forever be, among those teachings included in "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world," i.e. the ordinary and universal magisterium.

The Immaculate Conception was always one of those "points of doctrine" that Pope Pius IX taught in Tuas Libenter when he said we must submit ourselves to "points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, 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."

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. 

No, the Immaculate Conception was not held as divinely revealed by the OUM.  Otherwise, there need not even have been a solemn definition.

I told you one of the reasons for solemn definition - "One of the many reasons the pope solemnly defines a doctrine, is to erase all opposing opinions - for all time."

Go back and actually read my post quoting Pope Pius IX from Ineffabilis Deus and you will find he explains it most beautifully, I quoted a part of it below for you. He literally says that the Catholic Church has ever held the Immaculate Conception as divinely revealed. Where he says "and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation", he is saying the doctrine has always been contained in the ordinary and universal magisterium - that's what he is saying.

Why are you saying it was not held as divinely revealed by the OUM? I assume by that, you mean it was never held as divinely revealed by the Church, so what you are saying as if it is truth, is a word for word contradiction of the below infallible teaching.

"The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin — a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God — and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.." - Ineffabilis Deus

What you cannot accept is what the Church, in this instance through Pope Pius IX, teaches, namely, whether or not the teaching is contained in the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium or the Extraordinary Magisterium, they are both infallible. There is no difference because the Church's Magisterium is only always infallible.

Contrary to the NO ideas you keep promoting as Church teachings and all theologians' teachings and the magisterium's teachings and dogma of faith teachings, dogmas are defined, not not made up, not by popes and not by the totality of bishops in union with the pope. Dogmas are truths or doctrines, that have always been contained in the Church's Magisterium, just exactly as pope Pius IX teaches.

Whoever says I have another account under a different name than the name on this account is stating a falsehood.