FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
I was hoping this response was a joke and your evidence would be forthcoming, but I fear you're posting this as a serious response.

StevusMagnus Wrote:Herein lies the danger of trusting theologians with morality...

Catholic theologian promotes ‘false teaching,’ U.S. bishops say in ‘public correction’

Do you offer this as "evidence" or commentary?  Because it's not what was asked for, and even given that, it's not evidence of anything.  The Church has always corrected theologians.

Quote:I proposed to you an example situation where a new case was presented of scientific technology and so a moral question was presented. The theologians went and did their thing and there emerged a majority and minority view of the moral licitness of the procedure. A Catholic priest with an S.T.D., teaching bioethics at a noteworthy conservative Catholic grad school told me that the matter would be up to our informed consciences after proper study and reflection on the matter and that we were not bound by the majority theologian opinion because the Church had not officially decided or ruled on the matter one way or the other.

First, this is an anecdote, not evidence in support of your argument. 

Would you accept it if I said, "I talked to Father Jones and he said I'm right!"?  Further, the priest is unnamed as is the university.

However, if you were to e-mail or snail mail the priest and get him to side with you, that would be fine.  Or, if you want to post his name and affiliation, I will be happy to e-mail or snail mail him.

Quote:Any theologian worth his salt, including Aquinas, submits his theological opinions to scrutiny by the Pope and Bishops.

I don't understand this.  It seems to be a comment out of nowhere.  It has nothing to do with what you said above, it is not evidence as asked for, and it has nothing to do with your question on consensus below.

Is this some kind of stream-of-consciousness thing, like performance art?  What's your point?  Do you even have one?

Quote:You've yet to define "consensus" as an exact % of theologians and until you do the word "consensus" is meaningless. Is a majority a consensus? 75%? 98% The best you can do is Webster, but last I checked Noah Webster was not a Pope nor did he have any Magisterial authority. Therefore the his definition is irrelevant.

More legalisms?  Didn't you just complain about legalistic arguments?

Consensus means the common definition of the word.  There is no special ecclesiastical meaning of consensus.  There is no special ecclesiastical meaning of a lot of words.  I've stated this already.

If you disagree, either 1) Show my definition incorrect or inappropriate with a different definition and cite where it comes from, or, 2) show that there is a special ecclesiastical definition.

One cannot, by logic, prove a negative - that a special definition does not exist.  However, one can prove a positive - that it does exist.  You can prove your implied position - that it has a particular ecclesiastical meaning and that is the one that needs to be applied.

So, please do so.

Quote:In addition to the Professor, my view is supported by the Catholic moral system of probabilism which is an accepted methodology of the Catholic Church. It holds that, when there is question solely of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an