FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: CDF rejects SSPX second response
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 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(02-05-2012, 03:39 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 07:56 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Are you serious?

Manifest heretics are no longer members of the Church ipso facto, without need for any declaratory sentence, and therefore cannot hold offices or jurisdiction in her, much less demand our obedience. It would be absurd to imply otherwise.

Could you please provide a Magisterial document saying that we do not owe lawful obedience to lawful superiors regardless of their state in relation to the Church?  That is, please provide a Magisterial document stating that manifest heretics lose their authority to command obedience in lawful things.

No, actually, please provide at least three Magisterial documents attesting to this.

I already responded to this by quoting St. Robert Bellarmine's work.

Heretics are cut off from the Church and cannot possess jurisdiction in a body to which they no longer belong to.
(02-05-2012, 09:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]I already responded to this by quoting St. Robert Bellarmine's work.

I didn't ask for Bellarmine.
(02-05-2012, 09:19 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 09:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]I already responded to this by quoting St. Robert Bellarmine's work.

I didn't ask for Bellarmine.

Are you suggesting that only the magistrium is (or could be) authoritative in this matter?

(02-05-2012, 09:39 PM)matthew_talbot Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 09:19 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 09:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]I already responded to this by quoting St. Robert Bellarmine's work.

I didn't ask for Bellarmine.

Are you suggesting that only the magistrium is (or could be) authoritative in this matter?
(02-03-2012, 05:03 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 04:59 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]And that's exactly what traditional Catholicism does. It anchors itself to infallible Peter, not the doubting one.

Very witty, Vetus.

I'm glad your back Vetus.  I've always enjoyed your post.
(02-05-2012, 07:41 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 06:50 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 06:33 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:41 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 01:32 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]Their interpretation of the previous magisterium is by definition a private judgment.  Only the magisterium authentically interprets the magisterium.


Then the truth is whatever the men who happen to comprise the Magisterium at any one time says it is. That is shaky ground to build your faith on my friend.

This is a point I've been trying to make recently.  Either the Catholic Faith is objective and knowable (as Pope Pius XI said it was) or it is not.  If it is not, then it becomes whatever the current Magisterium says that it is, which makes it subjective (because, apparently, past magisterial decisions are perpetually open to re-interpretation by the current Magisterium).

Assuming that the Faith is "objective and knowable" and that the distinction between the objective and the subjective is quite as clear as you would like to make it, one has to ask how it is to be known. It seems like you are setting yourself up for rationalism here really. Religion is not merely a set of logical propositions to be deduced by an objective reason. 

First and foremost, there are the solemn creeds: the Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian and Tridentine.  Then there are decrees and canons of the ecumenical councils, and, what is most known to the laity, the generally approved catechisms* (Trent, St. Pius X, and the Baltimore).

The Catholic Faith is a set number of truths (Pius XI) which can be found in (and explicated from) divine revelation, either formally or virtually: "For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men ...   But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church" (Mortalium Animos, 9).


* Theology manuals are more-exhaustive explanations of the catechisms.

Okay, so we know it through the authority of the magisterium then?
(02-05-2012, 09:19 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 09:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]I already responded to this by quoting St. Robert Bellarmine's work.

I didn't ask for Bellarmine.

Bellarmine explains the concept clearly and with sources. It shouldn't be too hard to understand if you give him a chance.
(02-05-2012, 10:46 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 07:41 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 06:50 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 06:33 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:41 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 01:32 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]Their interpretation of the previous magisterium is by definition a private judgment.  Only the magisterium authentically interprets the magisterium.


Then the truth is whatever the men who happen to comprise the Magisterium at any one time says it is. That is shaky ground to build your faith on my friend.

This is a point I've been trying to make recently.  Either the Catholic Faith is objective and knowable (as Pope Pius XI said it was) or it is not.  If it is not, then it becomes whatever the current Magisterium says that it is, which makes it subjective (because, apparently, past magisterial decisions are perpetually open to re-interpretation by the current Magisterium).

Assuming that the Faith is "objective and knowable" and that the distinction between the objective and the subjective is quite as clear as you would like to make it, one has to ask how it is to be known. It seems like you are setting yourself up for rationalism here really. Religion is not merely a set of logical propositions to be deduced by an objective reason. 

First and foremost, there are the solemn creeds: the Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian and Tridentine.  Then there are decrees and canons of the ecumenical councils, and, what is most known to the laity, the generally approved catechisms* (Trent, St. Pius X, and the Baltimore).

The Catholic Faith is a set number of truths (Pius XI) which can be found in (and explicated from) divine revelation, either formally or virtually: "For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men ...   But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church" (Mortalium Animos, 9).


* Theology manuals are more-exhaustive explanations of the catechisms.

Okay, so we know it through the authority of the magisterium then?



Why must it be authority? Any bishop only has authority insofar as he passes on the Apostolic Faith. That faith is not some secret knowledge, discernible and known only to the clergy. It is possessed by the whole Church, and is lived and experienced in the daily lives of the faithful in the Church. Those faithful have an obligation to pass on that faith even in opposition to the Magisterium if necessary



(02-05-2012, 09:39 PM)matthew_talbot Wrote: [ -> ]Are you suggesting that only the magistrium is (or could be) authoritative in this matter?

Yes.  I'm not bound by the private theological opinions of Bellarmine any more so than I am bound by the theological opinions of Aquinas.  I'd like proper magisterial documentation to this doctrine.  Otherwise it's not set in stone and should not be treated as Gospel Truth to justify the gross mentality demonstrated by so many people on this forum.  However if this is the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church then I will bow to it.

All I'm asking for is magisterial documentation to that effect.
(02-06-2012, 12:06 AM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 09:39 PM)matthew_talbot Wrote: [ -> ]Are you suggesting that only the magistrium is (or could be) authoritative in this matter?

Yes.  I'm not bound by the private theological opinions of Bellarmine any more so than I am bound by the theological opinions of Aquinas.  I'd like proper magisterial documentation to this doctrine.  Otherwise it's not set in stone and should not be treated as Gospel Truth to justify the gross mentality demonstrated by so many people on this forum.  However if this is the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church then I will bow to it.

All I'm asking for is magisterial documentation to that effect.

“Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith" (1917 CIC, can.188.4).  Canon 155 states that "office" entails "some share, at least, of ecclesiastical power, whether of orders or of jurisdiction."

A cleric who departs from the Faith immediately loses his office of jurisdiction.

Crusading Philologist Wrote:Okay, so we know it through the authority of the magisterium then?

Yes, but magisterial documents are not open to perpetual re-interpretation, as even the First Vatican Council stated.  A doctrine must always be understood with the same sense and the same meaning, and the bishops may not disclose new doctrine, but must faithfully set forth the revelation and deposit of faith transmitted through the apostles to them.

A clear example of re-interpretation is then-Cardinal Ratzinger explaining how the anti-Modernist documents of the early twentieth century were "provisional" and in need of "correction," and that they have in fact been "superseded."

To contradict or otherwise oppose these documents (or to defend the condemned propositions and opinions) resulted in incurring the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff.
(02-06-2012, 12:53 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]“Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n.4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith" (1917 CIC, can.188.4).  Canon 155 states that "office" entails "some share, at least, of ecclesiastical power, whether of orders or of jurisdiction."

A cleric who departs from the Faith immediately loses his office of jurisdiction.

An out-dated Canon but I'll give you the principle behind it.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25