FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Kingofspades, RE ex cathedra
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
(09-15-2012, 04:49 PM)m.PR Wrote: [ -> ]edit:
(09-15-2012, 03:55 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]This all seems reasonable to me. I think the problem we run into here is that many conservative Catholics, and here trads are no different from the "neocons," tend to put forth a definition of Catholicity that puts great emphasis on blind adherence to dogma.

I get the overall point but it does seem to me very problematic to go around expressing difficulties with dogmas publicly. While these difficulties may not be real doubt on the part of one person, they may completely unsettle another. Thus we must be prudent with what we say, where we say it, who can hear it.

Yes, one should certainly be prudent. Still, I think we should be aware of the conservative attempt to ideologize the Faith. Ultimately, this is no less an example of self-will than is the liberal's rejection of dogma, as can be seen from the fact that the conservatives often reject teachings that they dislike, especially the Church's social teaching. I think the disrespect we see here is another consequence of all this. Since the conservative must downplay the social aspect of the Church, what now becomes important is political agreement, and so "communion" is redefined as adherence to a shared political ideology.

(09-15-2012, 05:21 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's a simple question that deserves an answer. Not too big of a deal.

I believe Father answered the question a couple pages back. As Tim says, perhaps we should attempt to understand what he is saying instead of immediately jumping all over him.
(09-15-2012, 05:37 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-15-2012, 05:21 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's a simple question that deserves an answer. Not too big of a deal.

I believe Father answered the question a couple pages back. As Tim says, perhaps we should attempt to understand what he is saying instead of immediately jumping all over him.

Can you quote this answer?  Is it adequate?
(09-15-2012, 05:40 PM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-15-2012, 05:37 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-15-2012, 05:21 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's a simple question that deserves an answer. Not too big of a deal.

I believe Father answered the question a couple pages back. As Tim says, perhaps we should attempt to understand what he is saying instead of immediately jumping all over him.

Can you quote this answer?  Is it adequate?

Unless I'm missing something, his answer hasn't been addressed. Perhaps it is inadequate, but it doesn't seem that anyone has attempted to show this to be the case.
(09-15-2012, 05:48 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-15-2012, 05:40 PM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-15-2012, 05:37 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-15-2012, 05:21 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's a simple question that deserves an answer. Not too big of a deal.

I believe Father answered the question a couple pages back. As Tim says, perhaps we should attempt to understand what he is saying instead of immediately jumping all over him.

Can you quote this answer?  Is it adequate?

Unless I'm missing something, his answer hasn't been addressed. Perhaps it is inadequate, but it doesn't seem that anyone has attempted to show this to be the case.

I addressed his first post in this thread already.  That further clarification was needed is established.
(09-15-2012, 05:15 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Even if it was, the last time the forum moderator confirmed someone's identity, well...

Nothing against Vox.  In fact, I believe that kingofspades is a priest.  I'm just saying, for someone who's predisposed to think otherwise, be suspicious... you can't say they wouldn't have cause.

I haven't checked anyone out.

As to what you are referring to, Mithrandylan, no one checked anyone out there, either. The point Q. was making that a (mentally) sick individual was involved and needed to be dealt with as a sick individual, not a mere lying troll. Agree or disagree, that was his thinking, and there is nothing ignoble in it.
(09-15-2012, 05:12 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]I've often thought it would be nice to have a more private place where you could converse with just one person (like email but with more immediate responses and easier viewing).

Well, there is the Private Message feature (clicking on the speech bubble below people's names in posts). Which is what tmw89 would have used if his interest hadn't been in showing Fr. publicly as a heretic. . .

(That just flowed well there, tmw. Not trying to be all sneaky.)

There's also the chat room, which has a private chat feature. But maybe you've been there (I'm not sure).
(09-15-2012, 04:35 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]Cardinal Newman said that "ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate;"

When it comes to ex-cathedra teaching, difficulties should not even make a doubt, let alone a disagreement.

Looks like I'd skipped over this when monitoring the thread earlier.

Doce Me, I hope you won't mind my editing the OP to include this at the end.  It gets right to the whole point.

(In the event you do object, feel free to say so and I'll edit it out.)
(09-15-2012, 08:21 PM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-15-2012, 04:35 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]Cardinal Newman said that "ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate;"

When it comes to ex-cathedra teaching, difficulties should not even make a doubt, let alone a disagreement.

Looks like I'd skipped over this when monitoring the thread earlier.

I missed it too. It's a good post.
It seems like father is saying (1) that Catholics can disagree with dogma without sinning and (2) that mere beatifications are infallible. I think he is not saying the right words at least as to the first point since as somone mention English may not be father's first language.
Pages: 1 2 3 4