FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: I respectfully disagree
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(05-15-2013, 07:39 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2013, 04:44 PM)Felix E Wrote: [ -> ]You could claim the same for almost any false position. There is nothing wrong with banning defense of a position that is offensive to pious ears. Especially when it is almost always accompanied by distasteful personal attacks against the hierarchy. And unfrotunately it is also used as a beating stick for traditionalism in general so it's best to totally avoid it. It has nothing to do with fearing the position. I fear it as much as I fear Protestantism, but those with ears often do not hear and as such shout the loudest which can make for a terrible discussion forum.

I respectfully disagree (as do a number of the most-learned pre-Vatican II theologians, not to mention Pontiffs and Doctors as well).

No no. One or two Doctors perhaps and some theologians agree that it is possible for a Pope to be a heretic. Which is not offensive to pious ears. What is offensive is the judgement from layman and a few radical sects to call true popes anti-popes and not only that but also to claim the chair is vacant. God has abandoned his Church no matter how you try and twist it if that is true. The theological speculation of theologian or saint is one thing: using that as a justification for the ridiculous and diabolical claims of SV is another.
(05-16-2013, 01:58 AM)Felix E Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2013, 07:39 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2013, 04:44 PM)Felix E Wrote: [ -> ]You could claim the same for almost any false position. There is nothing wrong with banning defense of a position that is offensive to pious ears. Especially when it is almost always accompanied by distasteful personal attacks against the hierarchy. And unfrotunately it is also used as a beating stick for traditionalism in general so it's best to totally avoid it. It has nothing to do with fearing the position. I fear it as much as I fear Protestantism, but those with ears often do not hear and as such shout the loudest which can make for a terrible discussion forum.

I respectfully disagree (as do a number of the most-learned pre-Vatican II theologians, not to mention Pontiffs and Doctors as well).

No no. One or two Doctors perhaps and some theologians agree that it is possible for a Pope to be a heretic. Which is not offensive to pious ears. What is offensive is the judgement from layman and a few radical sects to call true popes anti-popes and not only that but also to claim the chair is vacant. God has abandoned his Church no matter how you try and twist it if that is true. The theological speculation of theologian or saint is one thing: using that as a justification for the ridiculous and diabolical claims of SV is another.

I respectfully disagree.  :)

Either a layman can recognize heresy, as a matter of principle, or he cannot.  If we can't privately judge the Roman Pontiff to be a heretic, then neither can we privately judge our parish priests or fellow laymen to be heretics, either.
(05-16-2013, 07:19 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2013, 01:58 AM)Felix E Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2013, 07:39 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2013, 04:44 PM)Felix E Wrote: [ -> ]You could claim the same for almost any false position. There is nothing wrong with banning defense of a position that is offensive to pious ears. Especially when it is almost always accompanied by distasteful personal attacks against the hierarchy. And unfrotunately it is also used as a beating stick for traditionalism in general so it's best to totally avoid it. It has nothing to do with fearing the position. I fear it as much as I fear Protestantism, but those with ears often do not hear and as such shout the loudest which can make for a terrible discussion forum.

I respectfully disagree (as do a number of the most-learned pre-Vatican II theologians, not to mention Pontiffs and Doctors as well).

No no. One or two Doctors perhaps and some theologians agree that it is possible for a Pope to be a heretic. Which is not offensive to pious ears. What is offensive is the judgement from layman and a few radical sects to call true popes anti-popes and not only that but also to claim the chair is vacant. God has abandoned his Church no matter how you try and twist it if that is true. The theological speculation of theologian or saint is one thing: using that as a justification for the ridiculous and diabolical claims of SV is another.

I respectfully disagree.  :)

Either a layman can recognize heresy, as a matter of principle, or he cannot.  If we can't privately judge the Roman Pontiff to be a heretic, then neither can we privately judge our parish priests or fellow laymen to be heretics, either.

Can a layman recognize all heresy though? Probably not. He can recognize some of the bigger things but not the ones that require a lot of understanding in theology. I don't care how many times you've read the Summa or Ott, it doesn't make you able to sniff out every single heresy on earth. But that's besides the point: even if you can always and everywhere identify heresy, that is not the same as identifying someone as a heretic. That is simply not your role as a layman. It's not even a priests role to go around looking for heretics to condemn. It comes from the Bishops or Rome. It's absolutely unjust and ludicrous for a layman to go around judging people as heretics. It's not tradtiional and it's stupid if taken too far. Yeah every now and then I like to call someone a heretic, but honestly it's just a bit of polemic anger getting through. Identyfying through private judgment that someone holds views that are possibly heresies =/= someone being a heretic. And I believe these selfsame doctors and theologians agree with me. It takes more than just a pocketful of layman and some ex-SSPX seminarians to competently identify and authoratitvely judge a pope as a heretic. Where on earth do they get this mandate from? From Christ himself I guess, huh? Just like the proddies!
I gotta tell you this, you're missing the key ingredient, the Holy Ghost. He has been kicked to the curb, and Pope Francis has said so. Sensus Catholicus is His domain, and people instead rely on their own knowledge. Before the Church excommunicates a heretic, they talk, and talk, and talk, because it's hard to get at the specifics.

Language has limits and none of us communicate clearly, thus dependent clauses. If the Church took it's time with Luther how are we supposed, after two homilies, to decide we can see heresy ? Certainly way out abuses are different, like Halloween costume Mass, or having a Baptist minister concelebrating Mass.

This is where the Sensus Catholicus and the Holy Ghost come in, that's where you get that uneasy feeling sensing something is a miss. This is where you put on your hiking boots and git. We should be very careful labeling them heretics or modernists, we do not have the competence, and the best answer is fleet feet.

tim
I may not have been clear.  I'm referring to recognizing heresy in the external forum alone, not the internal forum (which determines a man's culpability).  For example, stating that men have the liberty to choose and follow any religion they desire is false and smacks of indifferentism.

Propositions can be orthodox, heretical or ambiguous (there are more labels, but I'll stick with these for now).  With ambiguous statements, we should most certainly ask for clarifications.  Heretical statements, however, are to be condemned outright.

Let me rephrase myself:  We should, seeing as we profess the Catholic Faith, possess the ability to recognize, condemn and avoid heresy uttered by other laymen and by clerics.  If we can never do so, then it follows that we can never really possess the virtue of Faith, either (to know an affirmative implies also knowing its negative).  So, instead of "judging others" to be heretics, let me instead say that we have the capacity to "judge the statements of others."
We can recognize and avoid, condemn is only and I mean only the purview of God.

tim
People not being able to necessarily comprehend or even know all the dogmas of the faith does not mean they do not hold the faith.  The medieval canonists dealt with this very question.  They determined that since this was usually not possible in the bulk of humanity, what was required of them was to believe that God exists and to do good works, and to have the general will to believe what the hierarchy told them to and to profess unity with the Church.  This “implicit faith” derived from an explicit faith in the Church was all that was sufficient. Pope Innocent IV (an important canonist of that time in his own right) said that one who errs in matters of dogma has the faith “so long as he believes it is the faith of the Church.  In that case, the faith of the Church replaces his opinion, though his opinion is false, it is not his faith, but his faith is the faith of the Church." (Innovent IV, Commentaria in quinque libros decretalia, Ad liber I).

This is all the more the case since language can change over time.  That’s why Cardinal Manning, in his work on the Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost said:
Cardinal Manning Wrote:The enunciation of the faith by  the living Church of this hour, is the maximum of  evidence, both natural and supernatural, as to the  fact and the contents of the original revelation.

And again:
Cardinal Manning Wrote:The maturity of theology is not antiquity, but its later days ; and language which was blameless in earlier and simpler times, may become heterodox in after ages : for example, the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father through the Son, the Immaculate Nativity of the Mother of God, and the like. Again, language which once was heterodox may become the test of truth, as the Homoousion, which was condemned by the Council of Antioch in the Sabellian sense, and in half a century was inserted in the Creed by the Council of Nicea. No critic except the living and lineal judge and discerner of truth, the only Church of God, can solve these inequalities and anomalies in the history of doctrine. To the Church the facts of antiquity are transparent in the light of its perpetual consciousness of the original revelation.
Furthermore, the heresy necessary for one to be therefore ipso facto separated from the Church without anything else had to be of such a nature that it was beyond dispute and recognizable to all.  One way was making a profession of faith in another society other than the Catholic Church (like, say, formally converting to the Nestorian or Methodist Church, etc.).  That is an obvious thing that all can recognize. 

The other was through “refusing the infallible teaching authority.”  This would mean explicitly rejecting the judgment of the Church.  Even simply stating a heretical proposition does not also mean one is refusing the infallible teaching authority.  More context is needed to show one is manifestly rejecting that authority and not docile to it, but erring in good faith (in which case the faith of the Church covers his false opinion).

The main problem is with those who declare the theological deductions of others to be heretical, and therefore consider them outside the Church.  In such a case, the one accused publically professes to believe all the Church has taught and to accept all the infallible judgments of the Church, and deduces doctrines he believes to be consonant with those judgments.  The other person disagrees that those deductions are consonant.  This is not enough for the latter person to believe the former has separated himself from the visible society of the Church.

Take the example Southpaw gives above: “men have the liberty to choose and follow any religion they desire.”  First of all, this in itself is ambiguous and may or may not go against the infallible judgment of the Church.  If he means that man has no obligation to receive the true revelation of God in faith and to firmly embrace it and follow it, then it does go against that judgment (more context is needed to show one is manifestly and publicly rejecting the infallible authority and not docile to it, but erring in good faith).  However, if it means as the Church has proposed (which I think he is actually alluding to), that man must be free from the constraints of the state in his religious activity, so long as his actions are not harmful to the common good or contrary to the natural law, then there is no defintiive condemnation of that specific proposition that I know of.  It’s a deduction that Southpaw believes is not consonant with past condemnations, but which others argue is consonant. 

If this kind of disagreement was sufficient for one person to declare another no longer a member of the Church, the work of theologians would disintegrate the Church—not to mention if lay people did so too!  Disagreements between Catholic theologians as to whether certain propositions were true or heretical have existed as long as theologians have existed.  It is only once the Church provides the definitive judgment on such disputed points does one run the risk of being separated from the visible society, that is the Church.

This is why the medieval canonists, when determining when this kind of ipso facto falling out the Church happened, wisely excluded what they called “new heresies.” If they had included “new heresies,” it would leave it up to the individual apart from the authoritative judgment of the Church to pass sentence on doctrines and therefore to judge who was and was not a member of the Church. As such, a “new heresy” must first be judged by the Church to actually be a heresy.

In addition, people may also disagree as to the meaning or even scope of past judgments—they may accept the judgment as they understand the meaning and scope, and disagree with someone else’s understanding—while both are open and docile to the further judgment of the Church on the matter.  This also is not sufficient for one to be ipso facto outside the Church.

(the above is not meant to get into the situation where the Magisterium is one of the parties in the “dispute.” The acceptance and promulgation of one deduction over another by the Magisterium, adds more weight to that deduction and more of an obligation toward assent to it, depending on how it has been promulgated).
Very interesting post, SaintSebastian, and definitely throws a monkey wrench into the grinding gears of certain armchair apologists.

thank you for the new research material!
Pages: 1 2 3