FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bp W Column, 5.30.09
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 12 13 14 15 16
"PoG" Wrote:It is wrong but that is not at all what I wrote. For some reason you have ignored the second part of the sentence: "or asserts what is already infallible Catholic doctrine." The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium is, as the name suggests, infallible. This is clearly enunciated in the SiSiNoNo article which, you write, is "anything but clear" to you.

So the pope is infallible when he "asserts what is already infallible Catholic doctrine"? You and I are infallible when we"assert what is already infallible Catholic doctrine".

How do we know when the pope is "asserting what is already infallible Catholic doctrine"? Do we compare it to some documents? Doesn't that make us our own pope?
(06-02-2009, 06:54 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 06:20 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:I'm not sure why you can't see it

Because I have read the complete relatio of Bishop Gasser and understand each of these quotes in context -- and many others that I simply dont have the time to transcribe for you.

In any case, let me say that this is ultimately about a distinction between the private life and public office of the same person -- the Pope.  While all agree that the former is (at least) probable and pious, the latter is certain.  I will say, however, that Journet's quote (above) provides further evidence, not only for the latter, but also for the former.  Finally, this is a rather "academic" question -- since Catholics relate to the Pope -- not in his interior and private life -- but in his public role and in his teaching office or magisterium.

I have and have read the complete relatio as well. You are claiming that Vatican I defined papal infallibility as including the pious belief that a pope could never disappear into heresy as a private person. That is obviously wrong as the definition you have quoted many times does not contain this.

Bishop Zinelli, Relator of the Faith at the same Council, did also hold the view of Pighuis as a pious opinion, showing how far from the mind of the Church is the idea that a pope could become a heretic, but without definitively adopting Pighi’s doctrine.  He spoke as follows:

"Confident in supernatural Providence, we judge it to be quite probable that that will never happen.  But God does not fail in the things that are necessary; therefore, if He permits so great an evil, the means to remedy such a situation will not be lacking."

I do think it rather silly to contemplate such a radical contradiction between the private and public life of the same person -- the Pope.  But putting aside the question of the inner life of the Pope -- we know that in his public teaching office he is not liable to teach heresy.  I think that is the key point in this thread.  
(06-02-2009, 07:17 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 06:54 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 06:20 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:I'm not sure why you can't see it

Because I have read the complete relatio of Bishop Gasser and understand each of these quotes in context -- and many others that I simply dont have the time to transcribe for you.

In any case, let me say that this is ultimately about a distinction between the private life and public office of the same person -- the Pope.  While all agree that the former is (at least) probable and pious, the latter is certain.  I will say, however, that Journet's quote (above) provides further evidence, not only for the latter, but also for the former.  Finally, this is a rather "academic" question -- since Catholics relate to the Pope -- not in his interior and private life -- but in his public role and in his teaching office or magisterium.

I have and have read the complete relatio as well. You are claiming that Vatican I defined papal infallibility as including the pious belief that a pope could never disappear into heresy as a private person. That is obviously wrong as the definition you have quoted many times does not contain this.

Bishop Zinelli, Relator of the Faith at the same Council, did also hold the view of Pighuis as a pious opinion, showing how far from the mind of the Church is the idea that a pope could become a heretic, but without definitively adopting Pighi’s doctrine.  He spoke as follows:

"Confident in supernatural Providence, we judge it to be quite probable that that will never happen.  But God does not fail in the things that are necessary; therefore, if He permits so great an evil, the means to remedy such a situation will not be lacking."

I do think it rather silly to contemplate such a radical contradiction between the private and public life of the same person -- the Pope.  But putting aside the question of the inner life of the Pope -- we know that in his public teaching office he is not liable to teach heresy.  I think that is the key point in this thread.  

All the more reason for you to be able to admit you got the relatio wrong. :)
(06-02-2009, 07:22 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 07:17 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 06:54 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-02-2009, 06:20 PM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:I'm not sure why you can't see it

Because I have read the complete relatio of Bishop Gasser and understand each of these quotes in context -- and many others that I simply dont have the time to transcribe for you.

In any case, let me say that this is ultimately about a distinction between the private life and public office of the same person -- the Pope.  While all agree that the former is (at least) probable and pious, the latter is certain.  I will say, however, that Journet's quote (above) provides further evidence, not only for the latter, but also for the former.  Finally, this is a rather "academic" question -- since Catholics relate to the Pope -- not in his interior and private life -- but in his public role and in his teaching office or magisterium.

I have and have read the complete relatio as well. You are claiming that Vatican I defined papal infallibility as including the pious belief that a pope could never disappear into heresy as a private person. That is obviously wrong as the definition you have quoted many times does not contain this.

Bishop Zinelli, Relator of the Faith at the same Council, did also hold the view of Pighuis as a pious opinion, showing how far from the mind of the Church is the idea that a pope could become a heretic, but without definitively adopting Pighi’s doctrine.  He spoke as follows:

"Confident in supernatural Providence, we judge it to be quite probable that that will never happen.  But God does not fail in the things that are necessary; therefore, if He permits so great an evil, the means to remedy such a situation will not be lacking."

I do think it rather silly to contemplate such a radical contradiction between the private and public life of the same person -- the Pope.  But putting aside the question of the inner life of the Pope -- we know that in his public teaching office he is not liable to teach heresy.  I think that is the key point in this thread.  

All the more reason for you to be able to admit you got the relatio wrong. :)

Well, I may revisit that sometime and let you know if I change my mind.  But, again, its really academic as far as I am concerned.  What really matters is the Pope acting in a public and magisterial capacity.  For now, I will leave the question of his private life to the "experts". 
Quote:That is a very plain and serious error relating to the very essence of faith.

If one is not able to make the correct theological distinction that it is possible for the Authentic Magisterium to err in matters of faith and morals one would have to despair and come to the same conclusion as lamentibili sane.

That is no heresy...so have no fear.  Neither do you have to assume the authority to sift the magisterium for heresy -- because that is impossible.  If you ever think the magisterium has taught some heresy -- then stop to consider whether it is you that may lack understanding.
(06-02-2009, 07:15 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
"PoG" Wrote:It is wrong but that is not at all what I wrote. For some reason you have ignored the second part of the sentence: "or asserts what is already infallible Catholic doctrine." The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium is, as the name suggests, infallible. This is clearly enunciated in the SiSiNoNo article which, you write, is "anything but clear" to you.

So the pope is infallible when he "asserts what is already infallible Catholic doctrine"? You and I are infallible when we"assert what is already infallible Catholic doctrine".

How do we know when the pope is "asserting what is already infallible Catholic doctrine"? Do we compare it to some documents? Doesn't that make us our own pope?

Some people what to have their cake [Pope] and eat it [judge him] too!
"PoG" Wrote:If one is not able to make the correct theological distinction that it is possible for the Authentic Magisterium to err in matters of faith and morals one would have to despair and come to the same conclusion as lamentibili sane.

The Church nor the Pope (in his capacity as pope) can err in matters of faith and morals. What you are rather confusedly proposing is heretical. You've made some other statements that are simply ridiculous:

"lamentabili sane" Wrote:
"PoG" Wrote:It is wrong but that is not at all what I wrote. For some reason you have ignored the second part of the sentence: "or asserts what is already infallible Catholic doctrine." The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium is, as the name suggests, infallible. This is clearly enunciated in the SiSiNoNo article which, you write, is "anything but clear" to you.

So the pope is infallible when he "asserts what is already infallible Catholic doctrine"? You and I are infallible when we"assert what is already infallible Catholic doctrine".

How do we know when the pope is "asserting what is already infallible Catholic doctrine"? Do we compare it to some documents? Doesn't that make us our own pope?

Then there's the old standard accusation of "despair".  At least you put a new twist on it; usually the conclusion causes "despair"...but you say "despair" causes the conclusion. Did you mean to say it that way or did you just get that wrong as well?


Quote:If one is not able to make the correct theological distinction that it is possible for the Authentic Magisterium to err in matters of faith and morals one would have to despair and come to the same conclusion as lamentibili sane.

You have been misguided on this by the novel theories of rupture theology.  The authentic magisterium is liable to err -- but only in the prudential order and never in the order of faith and morals, per se.  In other words such errors would never amount to the teaching of heresies against the dogmas of the faith. 

(06-03-2009, 10:14 AM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:If one is not able to make the correct theological distinction that it is possible for the Authentic Magisterium to err in matters of faith and morals one would have to despair and come to the same conclusion as lamentibili sane.

You have been misguided on this by the novel theories of rupture theology.  The authentic magisterium is liable to err -- but only in the prudential order and never in the order of faith and morals, per se.  In other words such errors would never amount to the teaching of heresies against the dogmas of the faith. 

The bolded is misleading. The Church is protected from errors in all aspects of faith and morals, not just in dogmas of the faith. I assume you mean de fide teachings here when you use the word "dogmas". The Church is protected from teaching any error in faith and morals; not only protected from teaching heretical errors.
(06-03-2009, 10:52 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-03-2009, 10:14 AM)newschoolman Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:If one is not able to make the correct theological distinction that it is possible for the Authentic Magisterium to err in matters of faith and morals one would have to despair and come to the same conclusion as lamentibili sane.

You have been misguided on this by the novel theories of rupture theology.  The authentic magisterium is liable to err -- but only in the prudential order and never in the order of faith and morals, per se.  In other words such errors would never amount to the teaching of heresies against the dogmas of the faith. 

The bolded is misleading. The Church is protected from errors in all aspects of faith and morals, not just in dogmas of the faith. I assume you mean de fide teachings here when you use the word "dogmas". The Church is protected from teaching any error in faith and morals; not only protected from teaching heretical errors.

Yes, I don't mean to restrict the divine assistance only to de fide dogmas.  But heresy, strictly speaking, are those that contradict the dogmas of faith.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16