FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Sedevacantism Debate at this Forum
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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
(01-25-2013, 08:03 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 07:56 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 01:20 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 01:14 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 09:56 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Its already been done, in the cornfield, Garrigou Lagrange amongst others believed that a pope could teach heresy and still be pope.

Garrigou Lagrange was a brilliant theologian and a superb professor of metaphysics. He was not however a Canon Lawyer nor did he write any commentaries on Canon Law because he did not have the approval of the Legislator to do so. I think that having a forum open to this topic will help clarify who the real authorities are that we can look to for answering the core question.

If this is a question of what the Church teaches, and I believe that for all of us it is, then we need to look at only the approved commentaries on the Law:
"Officially binding interpretation of codified law is reserved to the Legislator or to those to whom he commits the authority to so interpret the law. 1917 CIC 17. Establishment of a pontifical interpretation commission was effected by Pope Benedict XV, m.p. Cum Iuris Canonici (15 sep 1917), AAS 9/1 (1917) 483-484, Eng. trans., CLD I: 55-57. In the course of its enforcement, the Pio-Benedictine Code experienced scores of authentic interpretations. Note that there do not appear to have been any authentic interpretations issued after 1952 until at least the end of the Second Vatican Council."
http://www.canonlaw.info/masterpage1917.htm

Those authentic interpretations are well known and can be readily sourced in most Catholic University Libraries (and Traditional Catholic Seminaries): http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw_cites17.htm

He was a theologian, the issue is primarily theological, not canonical,  contrary to what you believe.

Nice - strong assertion, no supporting anything. Re-read the quote. The Church has addressed practically every moral and theological question that can arise. The ramifications of failing to uphold those teachings are fully contained in Canon Law. Interpretation is reserved to the Legislator and to those to whom he commits authority (Garrigou Lagrange is not a Canon lawyer or a designated authority for this question).

Are you afraid to look at the Law of the Church?

The church has existed for 2000 odd years, the code for 100 or so. Garrigou lagrange and any weighty theologian is an authority for this question, we do not subscribe to solo canon law on this forum, moreover the canonical argument has been disproved elsewhere. I have little wish to get involved in this debate, suffice to say some theologians thought that the pope could retain jurisdiction while a heretic.

The Church has always taught the same moral and theological truths, and its laws have consistently upheld those truths. The 1917 Code didn't create laws that are now only 100 years old - it coalesced laws from the past 2000 years. Canon Law is one of the streams of Church teaching.

Indulge me please - how is Garrigou lagrange somehow more qualified on the question than the scores of other equally qualified theologians and more importantly duly authorized Canonists on this specific question?

(01-25-2013, 09:34 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 08:03 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 07:56 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 01:20 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 01:14 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-25-2013, 09:56 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Its already been done, in the cornfield, Garrigou Lagrange amongst others believed that a pope could teach heresy and still be pope.

Garrigou Lagrange was a brilliant theologian and a superb professor of metaphysics. He was not however a Canon Lawyer nor did he write any commentaries on Canon Law because he did not have the approval of the Legislator to do so. I think that having a forum open to this topic will help clarify who the real authorities are that we can look to for answering the core question.

If this is a question of what the Church teaches, and I believe that for all of us it is, then we need to look at only the approved commentaries on the Law:
"Officially binding interpretation of codified law is reserved to the Legislator or to those to whom he commits the authority to so interpret the law. 1917 CIC 17. Establishment of a pontifical interpretation commission was effected by Pope Benedict XV, m.p. Cum Iuris Canonici (15 sep 1917), AAS 9/1 (1917) 483-484, Eng. trans., CLD I: 55-57. In the course of its enforcement, the Pio-Benedictine Code experienced scores of authentic interpretations. Note that there do not appear to have been any authentic interpretations issued after 1952 until at least the end of the Second Vatican Council."
http://www.canonlaw.info/masterpage1917.htm

Those authentic interpretations are well known and can be readily sourced in most Catholic University Libraries (and Traditional Catholic Seminaries): http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw_cites17.htm

He was a theologian, the issue is primarily theological, not canonical,  contrary to what you believe.

Nice - strong assertion, no supporting anything. Re-read the quote. The Church has addressed practically every moral and theological question that can arise. The ramifications of failing to uphold those teachings are fully contained in Canon Law. Interpretation is reserved to the Legislator and to those to whom he commits authority (Garrigou Lagrange is not a Canon lawyer or a designated authority for this question).

Are you afraid to look at the Law of the Church?

The church has existed for 2000 odd years, the code for 100 or so. Garrigou lagrange and any weighty theologian is an authority for this question, we do not subscribe to solo canon law on this forum, moreover the canonical argument has been disproved elsewhere. I have little wish to get involved in this debate, suffice to say some theologians thought that the pope could retain jurisdiction while a heretic.

The Church has always taught the same moral and theological truths, and its laws have consistently upheld those truths. The 1917 Code didn't create laws that are now only 100 years old - it coalesced laws from the past 2000 years. Canon Law is one of the streams of Church teaching.

Indulge me please - how is Garrigou lagrange somehow more qualified on the question than the scores of other equally qualified theologians and more importantly duly authorized Canonists on this specific question?

I made it quite clear I am not getting involved in this discussion, you are wrong but I will leave it to someone else or another time to prove you wrong.
Amazing, 51 to 51.  So what happens now?  I guess Vox has the final say...
Well, the Cornfield has returned, so it seems that Vox has already made her decision.
(01-29-2013, 05:47 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]Well, the Cornfield has returned, so it seems that Vox has already made her decision.

The cornfield came back weeks ago.
(01-29-2013, 06:05 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-29-2013, 05:47 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]Well, the Cornfield has returned, so it seems that Vox has already made her decision.

The cornfield came back weeks ago.

Right, but that's the subforum to which the poll question is referring, isn't it? 
That's not what I thought.  It seems from the OP that Vox was talking about a subforum that is devoted to SVism, like the Forum had a long time ago.  Which is why Vox says "bring back" (the SV forum) instead of "keep."

The cornfield came into existence as a place to put threads that had taken a turn for the worst-- threads with profanity or even blasphemy.  Threads that would besmirch the forum-- which is why the cornfield is not open to public viewing, only members.  The forum recognizes sedevacantists as Catholic per the definition of "trad" on the main site, so I doubt that Vox views SVism as being on the same level as blasphemy.  Since she made it clear that the CF was unmoderated, some posters took this to mean that we could talk about SVism there, which is why there are threads on it there.
Oh, huh, well I guess we'll just have to see what Vox decides to do.
(01-29-2013, 06:18 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]That's not what I thought.  It seems from the OP that Vox was talking about a subforum that is devoted to SVism, like the Forum had a long time ago.  Which is why Vox says "bring back" (the SV forum) instead of "keep."

The cornfield came into existence as a place to put threads that had taken a turn for the worst-- threads with profanity or even blasphemy.  Threads that would besmirch the forum-- which is why the cornfield is not open to public viewing, only members.  The forum recognizes sedevacantists as Catholic per the definition of "trad" on the main site, so I doubt that Vox views SVism as being on the same level as blasphemy.  Since she made it clear that the CF was unmoderated, some posters took this to mean that we could talk about SVism there, which is why there are threads on it there.
This is going to be very interesting.
I was under the impression as Catholics we defend democracy, but don't practice it.
Intresting crowd of voters.
(01-29-2013, 06:23 PM)Cooler King Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-29-2013, 06:18 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]That's not what I thought.  It seems from the OP that Vox was talking about a subforum that is devoted to SVism, like the Forum had a long time ago.  Which is why Vox says "bring back" (the SV forum) instead of "keep."

The cornfield came into existence as a place to put threads that had taken a turn for the worst-- threads with profanity or even blasphemy.  Threads that would besmirch the forum-- which is why the cornfield is not open to public viewing, only members.  The forum recognizes sedevacantists as Catholic per the definition of "trad" on the main site, so I doubt that Vox views SVism as being on the same level as blasphemy.  Since she made it clear that the CF was unmoderated, some posters took this to mean that we could talk about SVism there, which is why there are threads on it there.
This is going to be very interesting.
I was under the impression as Catholics we defend democracy, but don't practice it.
Intresting crowd of voters.

Where did you get that impression and in what context do you think it applies?

Ecclesiastical democracy in terms of doctrine and laws is false.  Otherwise, democracy as such isn't really condemned, though other system may be preferable to 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35