FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell? - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell? (/showthread.php?tid=25702)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell? - StevusMagnus - 02-18-2009

A few points,

First, Aquinas was working with the science he had at the time and placed ensoulment at the point he believed that the fetus was first "animated" and thus came to life. Had he known the biological fact that life begins at conception his own logic would naturally have placed ensoulment there.

Secondly, it seems we are getting hopelessly lead down the road of detailed legalistic terminology. Fr Cekada and Sedes in general love to play in this sandbox, so I'm not surprised he wrote the paper. I'm simply not inclined to put much credence in his writings since, in my opinion, he throws out the indefectability of the Church based on his 5 million legal nitpicks. And I'm not accusing you of doing this, but just pointing out an observation of where the conversation is headed. I appreciate that you were responding to my questions on consensus and theologian definitions. You've satisfied me with theologian, but the consensus definition you've tried to posit, is, to me nebulous at best.

Thirdly, I'd like to step back out of the weeds for a second to general principles. I, of course, recognize and submit to the ordinary Magisterium. As I  understand it, that includes doctrines everywhere and always believed by Catholics. In other words years and years and years of Catholics repeatedly holding a certain belief. (aka no women's ordination, no abortion, no contraception...these beliefs were made explicit in later Papal encyclicals).

I would admit that learned theologians, over time, put their two cents in and write and help to flesh out understanding of issues, beliefs, etc. within the bounds set out by the Magisterium and always subject to the rulings of the Magisterium. Their ponderings, posits, theories, opinions are all well and good. But unless they are restating some principle of the ordinary Magisterium, I don't see them as having any Magisterial authority. The only citations you seem to be able to come up with stating they, in and of themselves, have such authority are the theologians. And that being your interpretation of what they are saying. I'd like to see a Council or Papal, or Vatican document discussing the precise role of the theologians and go from there.

Fourthly, I definitely agree that Catholics should not just interpret Tradition wily nily. However, in this day and age asking one's priest or especially Bishop, is sadly almost no more guarantee of accuracy than an intelligent and well read Trad deciding a matter on his own. Writing to Rome, sure. Writing to a well respected Trad priest/ Bishop, sure. But in today's climate I'm personally wary of going to even my local conservative priest for advice as I know for a fact he's gotten things horribly wrong before on the Society due to ignorance. No doubt guiltless ignorance, but still.

In conclusion, at this point, I'm adhering to dogmas, Councils, teachings of Popes, ordinary Magisterium, etc. But I feel no need to adhere to anything "theologians" spout off, especially in today's climate. Their opinions to me are like the legal notion of "dicta", helpful extra information in a case that may help clarify the holding or give rationale for it, but not the "holding" or rule of the case.

For instance, theologians (Catholic ethicists) are writing all sorts of things about certain new scientific reproductive methods, discussing whether they are moral or not. One of those is called "GIFT" (Gammete Intrafallopian Tube Transfer). The majority opinion of theologians, I believe is that GIFT is immoral. But there are many theologians who disagree. My very orthodox priest professor of bioethics said at this point the Magisterium has not "ruled" on the matter so Catholics were free to to follow their conscience after prayer and reflection and study. It seems according to your rationale, I'd be morally obligated to not perform GIFT procedures simply because a majority of theologians who have looked at the issue say "no". I disagree. I say their opinions may be very helpful in assisting me make up my mind, but until the Magisterium says yay or nay, I'm not bound to any certainty to either position.

Now can the writings of these theologians assist the Vatican in making a determination on the moral licitness of this procedure. Certainly! Can moral theologians bind Catholic consciences while they are giving interim opinions on the matter? No. 



God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell? - Historian - 02-18-2009

"StevusMagnus" Wrote:Can moral theologians bind Catholic consciences while they are giving interim opinions on the matter? No. 

That is clearly and objectively in violation of Church teaching. 

I'll have more to say on your response later.



God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell? - StevusMagnus - 02-18-2009

QuisUtDeus Wrote:
"StevusMagnus" Wrote:Can moral theologians bind Catholic consciences while they are giving interim opinions on the matter? No. 

That is clearly and objectively in violation of Church teaching. 

I'll have more to say on your response later.

It is not in any way a violation of Church teaching. If so, we may as well place red hats on theologians and have the Pope give them authority to speak for him.




God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell? - Historian - 02-18-2009

StevusMagnus Wrote:
QuisUtDeus Wrote:
"StevusMagnus" Wrote:Can moral theologians bind Catholic consciences while they are giving interim opinions on the matter? No. 

That is clearly and objectively in violation of Church teaching. 

I'll have more to say on your response later.

It is not in any way a violation of Church teaching. If so, we may as well place red hats on theologians and have the Pope give them authority to speak for him.

If you don't believe me and the quotes I have used, Fr. Cekada, Fr. Ott, and the Pope, here's another view:

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2007/04/fundamental-theology-2-notae-theologic.html

Fundamental Theology, § 2. Notae Theologicæ <DIV style="CLEAR: both">[Image: mp002743.jpg]
(Ad versionem latinam legendam, pulsa <FONT color=#716e6c>hic</FONT>.)

Most theological problems of our day boil down to the notae theologicae (the “theological notes”), which is Sacred Theology's way of classifying doctrinal truths according to their level of certainty, along with the censurae (censures); that is, the classification of opposing errors. The subject is so important that--by popular request--I have decided to write up an English version of <FONT color=#716e6c>my previous post in Latin on the subject</FONT>. (My main source is Salaverri; Nicolau. Sacrae Theologiae Summa. Madrid: BAC, 1952; vol. 1, pp. 7-8. See also <FONT color=#716e6c>Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Intr</FONT>., § 8, “The Theological Grades of Certainty”; as well as <FONT color=#473624>The Catholic Encyclopedia,</FONT> "Censures: Theological," and Bl. Pope Pius IX, Tuas libenter, parragraph quoted in Denzinger, no. 1684--text included below. (For a Latin version of this post, click <FONT color=#716e6c>here</FONT>.)

<b>1. Truths to be believed with divine faith:

</b><b></b>De fide divina (a truth of divine faith): a truth which is contained in the Word of God, whether in written form (Sacred Scripture), or handed down orally (Sacred Tradition): e.g., Our Lord's descent into hell. The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called error in fide (error in the faith).

De fide divina et catholica (a truth of divine and catholic faith): a truth which is contained in the Word of God, whether in written form (Sacred Scripture), or handed down orally (Sacred Tradition), AND which is proposed by the Church--WHETHER through her solemn judgement OR through her ordinary and universal Magisterium--as divinely revealed and as credenda (“to be believed”): e.g., Our Lady's co-redemption. The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called haeresis (heresy).

De fide divina et catholica definita (a truth of defined divine and catholic faith): a truth which is contained in the Word of God, whether in written form (Sacred Scripture), or handed down orally (Sacred Tradition), and which is proposed by the Church, by her solemn judgement--that is, through her infallible magisterium, exercised in an extraordinary manner, whether in an ecumenical council or through the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra--as divinely revealed and as credenda (“to be believed”): e.g., "Souls that die in original sin only suffer eternal damnation." The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called haeresis (heresy).

<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Fidei proxima (a truth that is proximate to the faith): a truth which, <b>according to the almost unanimous consensus of theologians</b>, is contained in the Word of God, whether in written form (Sacred Scripture), or handed down orally (Sacred Tradition): e.g., Baptism of Desire. <b>The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called proxima errori in fide vel haeresi vel haeresim sapiens (proximate to error in faith or proximate to heresy or savoring of heresy).
</b></FONT>
<b>2. Truths to be held with ecclesiastical faith:
</b>
De fide ecclesiastica (a truth of ecclesiastical faith): a truth which is not formally part of Divine Revelation, but which is infallibly proposed by the Church's Magisterium: e.g., “The soul is the form of the body.” The error that is opposed to this level of Catholic truth is called error in fide ecclesiastica (error in ecclesiastical faith). (Many theologians, even prior to Vatican II, denied the separate existence of this category; many Thomists affirmed it, however, including Reginald Schultes--a student of Garrigou-Lagrange--in his famous, De Ecclesia.)

<b>3. Truths to be held with religious assent of intellect and will: </b>
<b>
</b>Doctrina catholica (Catholic doctrine): a truth which is taught in the entire Church, but is not always infallibly proposed: viz., those things which the Roman Pontiffs explicitly desire to teach in encyclicals: e.g., the doctrines on the Sacred Liturgy in Pius XII's Mediator Dei. The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called error in doctrina catholica (error in Catholic doctrine).
</b>
<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Theologice certa (a truth that is theologically certain): <b>a truth which was acknowledged “in the theological schools” </b>as certain and having a necessary logical connection with Revelation</FONT>; such connection may be virtual, or presupositive, or final: e.g., "Christ posessed the beatific vision while on earth, even before his death and resurrection." <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00"><b>The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called error in theologia (error in theology).
</b></FONT>
Ita tenenda, ut contraria sit temeraria (a doctrine that is to be held, such that the contrary is temerary): a truth proposed by the Roman Congregations, which nevertheless does not enjoy the special approval of the Roman Pontiff: e.g., “The first Gospel was written by the apostle St. Matthew.” The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called doctrina temeraria (temerary doctrine).

<b>4. Doctrines that are to be respected and revered:
</b>
<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Sententia communis, certa in theologia (a common doctrine, a doctrine that is certain in theology): <b>a doctrine that is proposed “in the schools” by the common consensus of theologians </b>(i.e., in pontifical faculties of theologians, prior to 1962, when their orthodoxy was carefully safeguarded) as “well founded”</FONT>: e.g., “Grace presupposes and perfects nature.” <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00"><b>The error that is opposed to this level of catholic truth is called falsa in theologia, vel temeraria, vel scholis catholicis injuriosa (false in theology, or temerary, or injurious to catholic schools).
</b></FONT>
Sententia pia (pious doctrine): a doctrine which is not theologically exact, but which communicates well the piety and sentiments of the faithful: e.g., “Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Ghost.” A truth that is contrary to this level of catholic truth is called scandalosa seu male sonans seu offensiva piarum aurium (scandalous, or bad-sounding, or offensive to pious ears).

<b>5. Opinions that are open to debate <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">among experts</FONT>:</b>

Sententia communior (the more common opinion): an opinion that is usually favored over its counterpart(s) by most theologians: “Mary suffered a natural, temporal death.”

Sententia propabilis (probable opinion): an opinion which is not certain but which has a high level of probability: e.g., “the Minor Orders are part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.”

Sententia propabilior (the more probable opinion): an opinion that is not certain but which is better founded than its counterpart(s): e.g., The view that the form of the consecration of the wine includes not only the words hoc est… calix sanguinis mei, but also the words novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

Sententia tuta, sententia tolerata (safe opinion, tolerated opinion): an opinion which may be weakly founded or even altogether false, but which the Church has not, at least for the moment, deemed worthy of censure or condemnation: e.g., Molina’s scientia media.

-----------------

<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">The core of this classification (at least nos. 1 and 3) is confirmed by the words of Blessed Pope Pius IX, in his letter to the German Bishops, titled Tuas libenter (1863). </FONT>There he tells Catholic theologians to be aware that they are required not only to believe de fide doctrines (from category 1),<b> but also to submit to other decisions and teachings of the Church and her theologians</b> (category 3):


Quote:<P align=justify>For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith</FONT>.

But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">but that it is also necessary to subject themselves </FONT>to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00"> to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions</FONT>, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure. (Denzinger no. 1684.)
</DIV>You will find no one worth their salt agreeing with your position.

Your first error is that this is not limited to "moral theologians" but speaks of theologians in general.

Your second error is assuming the theologians are binding the faithful.  It is the Church who binds the faithful to the opinions of Her theologians.

Your third error is mischaracterizing "interim".  There are different degrees of "interim" as shown above, and at certain degrees of "interim" we are bound, by the Church, to assent.

But, I'm willing to listen.  Show me anyone with any type of worthy credentials who isn't a condemned heretic, modernist, etc. who supports your position.  I've shown who supports mine including a professor of the Angelicum.




God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell? - Historian - 02-18-2009

StevusMagnus Wrote:A few points,

First, Aquinas was working with the science he had at the time and placed ensoulment at the point he believed that the fetus was first "animated" and thus came to life. Had he known the biological fact that life begins at conception his own logic would naturally have placed ensoulment there.

Not necessarily.  He believed that it happened progressively:

Quote:And after the sensitive soul, by the power of the active principle in the semen, has been produced in one of the principal parts of the thing generated, the sensitive soul of the offspring begins to work towards the perfection of its own body, by nourishment and growth. The active power which was in the semen ceases to exist when the semen is dissolved and its spirit vanishes.

He believed the fetus had a sensitive soul produced by the active principle in the semen.  After the fetus was grown to an appropriate amount, then it would receive a rational soul.  So he already believed there was life at conception, just that it did not have a rational soul.    He did not make a biological error, but a philosophical and theological one based on Aristotelian philosophy.

In any event, it's irrelevant.  He made a statement that was in theological error whatever it was based on.

Quote:Secondly, it seems we are getting hopelessly lead down the road of detailed legalistic terminology. Fr Cekada and Sedes in general love to play in this sandbox, so I'm not surprised he wrote the paper. I'm simply not inclined to put much credence in his writings since, in my opinion, he throws out the indefectability of the Church based on his 5 million legal nitpicks. And I'm not accusing you of doing this, but just pointing out an observation of where the conversation is headed.  I appreciate that you were responding to my questions on consensus and theologian definitions. You've satisfied me with theologian, but the consensus definition you've tried to posit, is, to me nebulous at best.

Pot calling kettle black.  I seem to recall a certain forum member making post after post ad nauseum about Canon Law and the validity of SSPX confessions.  Why is it that appropriate in that venue and not here?

But, really, your argument here is nothing more than rhetoric, and I will be happy to show you why.

1) We aren't talking about law of any sort, but rather philosophy and theology.  They are not "legalistic" arguments, but philosophical and theological arguments.  They are not based on a rule of law, but on the methodology of philosophy and theology.  They are based on certain premises, on logic, etc.  That is much different than a legalistic argument that is based, sometimes on logic, but more often on prior rulings, the letter of the law, legal definitions, etc.  To which I might remind you that you are the one being "legalistic" if anyone is because you are the one scrutinizing definitions, etc.

2) I was waiting for this attack to come up.  Nothing in Fr. Cekada's paper even remotely relates to sedevacantism - in fact he refers to John XXIII by his title.  You're attacking the person instead of the argument.

3) Most of what I have quote from Fr. Cekada's paper is him quoting a professor of the Angelicum who has one of the highest theological degrees possible.  This professor was not a sedevacantist.  The other quotes come from Popes.  In fact, I only quoted Fr.'s own words once - his argument about the post-V2 theologians not making the Church defectible.

4) All of Fr.'s arguments are cited by others as far as the theology and principles go.  I just quoted you another one, and there is Fr. Ott, and, ad nauseum.  You won't find an orthodox theologian who disagrees with these arguments.

5) The consensus description is only needed because you are being legalistic and arguing with "consensus" vs. "unanimous" when it is clear that by "unanimous" the Church does not mean every theologian for all of time which is why I felt it necessary to drag poor St. Thomas into this disaster.

6) Fr. Cekada was educated in theology in SSPX seminaries.  There is nothing he says here that any other SSPX priest or bishop would not say at least as far as how theology works.

Quote:Thirdly, I'd like to step back out of the weeds for a second to general principles. I, of course, recognize and submit to the ordinary Magisterium.

Apparently not since you won't recognize and submit to the consensus of Catholic theologians even though it is demanded by the Church.

Quote:As I  understand it, that includes doctrines everywhere and always believed by Catholics. In other words years and years and years of Catholics repeatedly holding a certain belief. (aka no women's ordination, no abortion, no contraception...these beliefs were made explicit in later Papal encyclicals).

OK, let me turn the "legalistic" tables on you:

"doctrines everywhere and always believed by Catholics"

That sounds like "unanimous" to me.  So if there is one Catholic somewhere who doesn't believe X, that means we don't have to believe it?  Because that's your argument about "consensus".

You will notice that fidei proxmia holds higher bearing that doctrina Catholica, and fidei proxima is based on the almost unanimous consensus of theologians.

And yes, the last cite says "almost unanimous consensus of theologians" because dead ones can't reverse themselves as I pointed out to you.

Quote:I would admit that learned theologians, over time, put their two cents in and write and help to flesh out understanding of issues, beliefs, etc. within the bounds set out by the Magisterium and always subject to the rulings of the Magisterium. Their ponderings, posits, theories, opinions are all well and good.

Sure, those fall under Sententia communior, Sententia propabilis, Sententia propabilior, Sententia tuta, sententia tolerata, and even a general theological posit.


Quote: But unless they are restating some principle of the ordinary Magisterium, I don't see them as having any Magisterial authority.  The only citations you seem to be able to come up with stating they, in and of themselves, have such authority are the theologians.

Apparently you are ignoring what was said.  They have no authority in and of themselves, the authority comes because they are organs of the Ordinary Magisterium.

Quote:2.  Pius IX. Reproof to those who reject the teachings of scholastic
theology: 
  ï  ìNor are we ignorant that in Germany there also pre-
vailed a false opinion against the old school, and against the
teaching of those supreme Doctors, whom the universal
Church venerates because of their admirable wisdom and
sanctity of life. <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">But <b>by this false opinion the authority of the
Church itself is called into danger</b>, especially since the
Church, not only through so many continuous centuries has
permitted that theological science be cultivated according to
the method and the principles of these same Doctors, sanc-
tioned by the common consent of all Catholic schools, but it
[the Church] also very often extolled their theological doctrine
with the highest praises, and strongly recommended it as a
very strong buttress of faith and a formidable armory against
its enemies.î</FONT> Tuas libenter, 1863, DZ 1680.


Quote:And that being your interpretation of what they are saying. I'd like to see a Council or Papal, or Vatican document discussing the precise role of the theologians and go from there.

If you disagree with my interpretation, then offer an alternative interpretation and let's see who is right.

You've been given the document.  Tuas libenter.  We also have the word of a professor of the Angelicum and a text used for doctorates in Sacred Theology.

Quote:Fourthly, I definitely agree that Catholics should not just interpret Tradition wily nily. However, in this day and age asking one's priest or especially Bishop, is sadly almost no more guarantee of accuracy than an intelligent and well read Trad deciding a matter on his own. Writing to Rome, sure. Writing to a well respected Trad priest/ Bishop, sure. But in today's climate I'm personally wary of going to even my local conservative priest for advice as I know for a fact he's gotten things horribly wrong before on the Society due to ignorance. No doubt guiltless ignorance, but still.

That's irrelevant as to whether or not the average person asking a priest he trusts can have moral certitude by following the answer.  If you doubt your priest, then you cannot procede with moral certitude.

In the case of the consensus of theologians, the Church Herself tells us not only can we proceed with moral certitude, but that we are <b>obligated</b> to assent.

Quote:In conclusion, at this point, I'm adhering to dogmas, Councils, teachings of Popes, ordinary Magisterium, etc. But I feel no need to adhere to anything "theologians" spout off, especially in today's climate. Their opinions to me are like the legal notion of "dicta", helpful extra information in a case that may help clarify the holding or give rationale for it, but not the "holding" or rule of the case.

Neither do the Modernists, Protestants, etc., so you might want to look at who's in agreement with you.

Quote:For instance, theologians (Catholic ethicists) are writing all sorts of things about certain new scientific reproductive methods, discussing whether they are moral or not. One of those is called "GIFT" (Gammete Intrafallopian Tube Transfer). The majority opinion of theologians, I believe is that GIFT is immoral. But there are many theologians who disagree. My very orthodox priest professor of bioethics said at this point the Magisterium has not "ruled" on the matter so Catholics were free to to follow their conscience after prayer and reflection and study. It seems according to your rationale, I'd be morally obligated to not perform GIFT procedures simply because a majority of theologians who have looked at the issue say "no". I disagree. I say their opinions may be very helpful in assisting me make up my mind, but until the Magisterium says yay or nay, I'm not bound to any certainty to either position.

What you don't get, see, is that the consensus of theologians is part of the Ordinary Magisterium.  Either you don't get it, or you are in denial.  I don't care which, but either way you are in error.

Quote:Now can the writings of these theologians assist the Vatican in making a determination on the moral licitness of this procedure. Certainly! Can moral theologians bind Catholic consciences while they are giving interim opinions on the matter? No. 


"Interim opinions" as you describe above should not be the food of the Catholic faithful as I have pointed out wrt to Hahn and his nonsense.   But you are not only rejecting interim opinions of the most superficial kind, you are rejecting the premise that we can be bound at all by the consensus of theologians, and your proposition has been condemned.

As seems typical of my disagreements with you, I'm the one who is obliged to offer all kinds of evidence for my position, which I do, and you dismiss it with "sedevacantist", "oh, that's just a theologian talking", "these are legalisms", etc.   At the same time, you offer no evidence for your side but demand more evidence from me.

Arguing with you is like clapping with one hand. 

Here's my challenge to you:

Find <b>two</b> people with credentials who agree with your position and argue against what I, Fr. Ott, Fr. Cekada, and the person who writes the Ite ad Thomam blog state, and you'll have some credibility.  Right now you just have an opinion and a lot of excuses.

Can you do it?  Can you find two people who agree with your position?  Note I'm making it easier on you.  No council documents, no encyclical, no Magisterial statement.  Just two people who aren't notorious heretics and have some kind of credentials.

We'll find out.  I suspect you will try to weasel out of it, but prove me wrong.



God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell? - Historian - 02-18-2009

Here is the SSPX applying the principle:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1993_October/La_Civilta_Cattolica.htm

Quote:Some theologians even argue that, <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">since this teaching on the reality of the fires of hell is accepted by <b>almost all theologians</b>, it is a revealed truth</FONT>, though not yet officially defined as such by the Church. <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Such a solemn definition would make it a dogma.</FONT>





God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell? - StevusMagnus - 02-18-2009

First...

QuisUtDeus Wrote:
"StevusMagnus" Wrote:Can moral theologians bind Catholic consciences while they are giving interim opinions on the matter? No. 

That is clearly and objectively in violation of Church teaching. 

Then...

QuisUtDeus Wrote:
Quote:Now can the writings of these theologians assist the Vatican in making a determination on the moral licitness of this procedure. Certainly! Can moral theologians bind Catholic consciences while they are giving interim opinions on the matter? No. 


"Interim opinions" as you describe above should not be the food of the Catholic faithful as I have pointed out wrt to Hahn and his nonsense.  

Which is it?



God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell? - 7HolyCats - 02-18-2009

Stevus invoked my name, so I'm just stopping by to clarify, most current theologians and hierarchs (and myself) lean towards the view that the infusion of the rational soul happens at fertilization...but the "consensus" of all theologians throughout history, probably does lean against it and leans more towards 40 days.

I think that a good document on the different levels of teaching an assent came out from the CDF while Ratzinger was its head. Has anyone quoted that yet?




God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell? - StevusMagnus - 02-18-2009

Herein lies the danger of trusting theologians with morality...

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=23517">Catholic theologian promotes ‘false teaching,’ U.S. bishops say in ‘public correction’</a>

I proposed to you an example situation where a new case was presented of scientific technology and so a moral question was presented. The theologians went and did their thing and there emerged a majority and minority view of the moral licitness of the procedure. A Catholic priest with an S.T.D., teaching bioethics at a noteworthy conservative Catholic grad school told me that the matter would be up to our informed consciences after proper study and reflection on the matter and that we were not bound by the majority theologian opinion because the Church had not officially decided or ruled on the matter one way or the other.

Any theologian worth his salt, including Aquinas, submits his theological opinions to scrutiny by the Pope and Bishops. You've yet to define "consensus" as an exact % of theologians and until you do the word "consensus" is meaningless. Is a majority a consensus? 75%? 98% The best you can do is Webster, but last I checked Noah Webster was not a Pope nor did he have any Magisterial authority. Therefore the his definition is irrelevant.

In addition to the Professor, my view is supported by the Catholic moral system of probabilism which is an accepted methodology of the Catholic Church. It holds that, when there is question solely of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an <!--k03=xxyyyk.htmaction<!--u44, it is permissible to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty even though the opposing view is more probable.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12441a.htm

Quote:The prevailing theory amongst <!--k23Probabilists holds that if five or six <a target="_blank" href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a>, notable for <a target="_blank" href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12517b.htm">prudence</a> and learning, independently adhere to an opinion their view is solidly probable, if it has not been set aside by authoritative decisions or by intrinsic arguments which they have failed to solve. Even one <a target="_blank" href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm">theologian</a> of very exceptional authority, such as <a target="_blank" href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01334a.htm">St. Alphonsus Liguori</a>, is able to make an opinion solidly probable, as we <a target="_blank" href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm">know</a> from the official declarations of the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm">Holy See</a>.

Thus I'm free as a Catholic to hold a position outside the "consensus" of theologians by adhering to a "probable" thelogical opinion and even <b>one</b> noted theologian can make an opinion "probable". Even if it is "less probable" than the "consensus opinion".

As the quote states I would only be bound if the opinion has been overuled by authortative decisions, or has unsolved "intrinsic arguments ". All I need is at least one or at most 4-5 good theologians to agree with me and I'm set morally.

I'm glad that I was able to clarify my position due to your research and my own. It is now clearer to me. This position is fully Catholic.




God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell? - Historian - 02-18-2009

StevusMagnus Wrote:First...

QuisUtDeus Wrote:
"StevusMagnus" Wrote:Can moral theologians bind Catholic consciences while they are giving interim opinions on the matter? No. 

That is clearly and objectively in violation of Church teaching. 

Then...

QuisUtDeus Wrote:
Quote:Now can the writings of these theologians assist the Vatican in making a determination on the moral licitness of this procedure. Certainly! Can moral theologians bind Catholic consciences while they are giving interim opinions on the matter? No. 


"Interim opinions" as you describe above should not be the food of the Catholic faithful as I have pointed out wrt to Hahn and his nonsense.  

Which is it?

Both.

"'Interim opinions' as you descibe above", and those of Scott Hahn, which are really posits, should not be food of the Catholic faithful.  Notice I put "interim opinions" in quotes because opinions are not given, just a posit is offered.

"Interim opinions on the matter" is a sweeping general statement and includes those opinions which are theologice certa.

Theologice certa is "interim" in two senses: 1) They may be reversed since they are not infallible, 2) they may become fidei proxima by being held to the "almost unanimous consenus of theologians" over time, or they may end up being proclaimed as dogma.