FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Sacraments for Remarried "Kaspar Changes the Paradigm, Bergoglio Applauds"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(03-02-2014, 07:17 AM)FatherCekada Wrote: [ -> ]1. The "must-be-universal-in-time" article -- "I have to be able to find it in 'Tradition' before I'm bound to accept it" -- is a false principle SSPX has been promoting for decades. It turns an effect (consistency with prior magisterial teaching because it is ordinary magisterium) into a condition ("I, the Superior General of SSPX must be convinced the teaching is in accord with 'Tradtion' before I am bound to submit to it as universal ordinary magisterium.")

Tradition is something knowable, Father.  The teachings of the popes, doctors, and theologians regarding licit disobedience assume that.

Good Catholics are able to determine, for example, that telling Hindus they should not convert to the one, true Church is at odds with Tradition.


Quote:2. As regards authentic magisterium: A pope has the “power and office to teach doctrine” and as a Catholic you have “the obligation and the right to receive instruction.” The teaching of a pope is authentic in the strict sense, “because of the authority of God’s delegation that the teacher uses.” You would therefore “be bound to give it assent of the intellect,” because his teaching authority is founded in “a mission received from God, to which is attached divine assistance.” (Salaverri, De Ecclesia 1:503ff. His emphasis)

So what's Francis doing when he opens his mouth every day if not teaching -- using his office to instruct you in matters of faith and morals?

If what you state were as simple as that we wouldn't have Paul's rebuke of Pope Peter enshrined for our edification in Holy Scripture.  It really is about that simple. 

The root error of the sede vacantist and the neo-Catholic are nearly the same: believing the pope is impeccable.

Now, Father, I realize you are probably going to come back with guns blazing.  You can have the last word.  As I indicated earlier, I am not now prepared - due to time limitations for starters - to debate you.

[/quote]

After fifty years as a seminarian and priest, someone finally set me straight on that!  :grin:
[/quote]

During those fifty yrs., how many were spent as a sedevacantist priest?
Why would a man who believes that the Seat of Peter is vacant come to this board of traditional Catholics. I beg for pardon if I'm wrong, but it seems
that you are proselytising.























(03-03-2014, 11:40 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-02-2014, 07:17 AM)FatherCekada Wrote: [ -> ]1. The "must-be-universal-in-time" argument -- "I have to be able to find it in 'Tradition' before I'm bound to accept it" -- is a false principle SSPX has been promoting for decades. It turns an effect (consistency with prior magisterial teaching because it is ordinary magisterium) into a condition ("I, the Superior General of SSPX must be convinced the teaching is in accord with 'Tradtion' before I am bound to submit to it as universal ordinary magisterium.")

Tradition is something knowable, Father.  The teachings of the popes, doctors, and theologians regarding licit disobedience assume that.

Good Catholics are able to determine, for example, that telling Hindus they should not convert to the one, true Church is at odds with Tradition.

Sure, but at issue is whether SSPX's "The "must-be-universal-in-time" argument is a condition for a teaching being considered universal ordinary magisterium.

My point is that it is not
(03-03-2014, 11:40 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-02-2014, 07:17 AM)FatherCekada Wrote: [ -> ]2. As regards authentic magisterium: A pope has the “power and office to teach doctrine” and as a Catholic you have “the obligation and the right to receive instruction.” The teaching of a pope is authentic in the strict sense, “because of the authority of God’s delegation that the teacher uses.” You would therefore “be bound to give it assent of the intellect,” because his teaching authority is founded in “a mission received from God, to which is attached divine assistance.” (Salaverri, De Ecclesia 1:503ff. His emphasis)

So what's Francis doing when he opens his mouth every day if not teaching -- using his office to instruct you in matters of faith and morals?

If what you state were as simple as that we wouldn't have Paul's rebuke of Pope Peter enshrined for our edification in Holy Scripture.  It really is about that simple. 

We've been through Peter-rebuking-Paul elsewhere on this site before. Suarez says the passage does not allow a public rebuke of the pope. And in any case, the rebuke was not for a doctrinal error, but for dissimulation about a principle which Peter himself recognized.

You can hardly say that the post-Conciliar popes "dissimulated" about accepting the Church's past condemnations of ecumenism, religious liberty and modernism. They rejected those condemnations and preached a new doctrine.
(03-03-2014, 11:40 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]The root error of the sede vacantist and the neo-Catholic are nearly the same: believing the pope is impeccable.

Sorry, but that's an idiotic assertion. I believe that because of Christ's promise, the authority of the Church cannot give evil or error.
(03-04-2014, 03:00 AM)JoniCath Wrote: [ -> ]During those fifty yrs., how many were spent as a sedevacantist priest?
Why would a man who believes that the Seat of Peter is vacant come to this board of traditional Catholics. I beg for pardon if I'm wrong, but it seems
that you are proselytising.
I didn't bring up anything on this thread about sedevacantism. Are you proselytizing?  :)
Here's how I approach the issue:

We all believe that we can objectively know the Faith and, therefore, also recognize error.  See Mortalium Animos (n. 8.), Liberalism is a Sin (ch. 32) as well as the CCC (n. 890.) for confirmation.  On the other hand, we owe obedience to the Magisterium of the Church, even in merely disciplinary matters (cf. Pope St. Nicholas, Conc. Romain, ch. 5: Denz. 326: "pro ecclesiastica disciplina"; Vatican I, Sess. IV, ch. 3: Denz. 1827, 1831).  To claim that we are free to sift the Church's disciplines, never mind doctrinal teachings, is a schismatic attitude founded on a heretical opinion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra, n. 12f.; Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, n. 9).  Moreover, as noted by Fr. Cekada (quoting Canon Bardy) and Dei Verbum (n. 10.2), it is the living Magisterium's role "to fix and define authentic tradition," who "exclusively" has the task of "authentically interpreting the word of God."  After these points have been admitted, the next questions to arise are:  "Can the Magisterium establish dangerous or harmful discipline (cf. Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, n. 78; Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, n. 4ff.)?"  And:  "Has the Magisterium in fact done so?"  The answer to the first question weighs heavily on the answer to the second one.
(03-04-2014, 08:16 AM)FatherCekada Wrote: [ -> ]Sure, but at issue is whether SSPX's "The "must-be-universal-in-time" argument is a condition for a teaching being considered universal ordinary magisterium.

My point is that it is not.

How can it not be?  Public revelation was closed with the death of the last Apostle.
Pages: 1 2 3