God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell?
QuisUtDeus Wrote:You're being obstinate on purpose now.

You're judging the internal forum. ;)

Quote:If Ott and the CE say we can (and in some cases should) believe things given by a consensus of theologians, does that not create a moral certitude by definition?

Quote:<font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);"><b> <!--k02=09580c.htmhuman<!--u66 <!--k04=xxyyyk.htmcertitude</b><!--u44 may be obtained by arguments drawn from the inferior and subordinate <!--k03=xxyyyk.htmauthorities<!--u44 such as the <!--k03=x61583.htmFathers<!--u44 and the "Schola Theologica".<!--k01=x98989.htm </font>

Ott and the CE never claim what you are asserting. Namely that a consensus of theologians (who and how many we don't know) can by their own determination bind the laity to a proposition to a moral certainty. Even if the CE made such an assertion it would be false.

Quote:What is "human certitude"?  It is certitude obtained through reason - i.e., moral certitude.

This is your own assumption. If the CE meant moral certitude, why not say it?

Quote:Really? Then why did you argue they are not indefectible like it meant something?

Because your assertion acts as if they were. It was an exaggeration, true. But the principle remains. These theologians in and of themselves have no binding Magisterial authority to bind us to propositions to a moral certainty.

Quote:Where does Ott require it to be a "consensus of theoloigans combined with Tradition and the Fathers" to give it a degree of theological certitude?  Nowhere.  It only has to be a consensus of theologians.

It was your analogy of Limbo that combined theological opinion with those of the Fathers and Tradition. My analogy was more applicable to your claim of only Theologian consensus. Furthermore Ott nowhere says a consensus of theologians binds Catholics to a moral certainty.

Quote:So what is a consensus?

You have a dictionary, look it up.

So Webster's dictionary, in effect, binds Catholic souls by determining how many theologians are required to have a certain opinion for it to become believable to a moral certainty? What definition does the Magisterium use? Or does the Magisterium make this claim at all?

Quote:You don't understand the language.  Moral certainity is not de fide.  Moral certainty is not supernatural certainty.  It allows us to think, or believe, without incurring a penalty.


I do understand the language.

Then you're being coy and obstinate.

Again, you are reading souls. I'm not. I understand what moral certainty means and I'm saying that mere "consensus of theologians", whatever that means, doesn't create it.

Quote:Thus, we can proceed with a degree of moral certitude proportionate to what the Church says the theological grade of certainty is for a particular proposition.

Right, the Church.

Of which the Schola Theologica is an important part and always has been.  It provides, in a sense, the faculty of "reason" within the Church.

Theologians assist the Church through study but are subject to the teaching of the Magisterium. Unnamed and unnumbered theologians do not speak for the Church.

Quote:Define the "Schola Theologica" and tell us what number of them equals a "consensus" through Magisterial statements, then show through Magisterial statements how a consensus opinion of these men, in and of itself, obliges us to a believe their proposition to a moral certainty.

All this shows is either 1) your obstinance, or, 2) your ignorance.  But, again, I'll play along because I really think this is obstinance on your part.

The <b>Schola Theologica</b> is comprised of theologians licensed by the Church.  A <b>consensus</b> would be a majority of them.  Simple, right?

Not really. Where is a citation for this definition? Whose is it? Also please cite when the Church has ever counted up the number of theologian opinions to come to a majority and bind souls to a moral certainty.

Quote:I already showed Ott stating that we are obliged to believe their propositions to a degree of moral and theological certainty.

Ott never says this. Even if he did, he is but another theologian. Hans Kung could have said as much. Cite Magisterial authority for this proposition.

Quote:I don't know what you mean by "Magisterial statements".  Do you mean the Extraordinary Magisterium?  In which case, I can offer no proof but that means little because in the Ordinary Magisterium there is proof.  The proof is that the Church designates things with varying degrees of certainty and one criteria is the consensus of theologians.

Then it should be easy for you to cite a statement from a Pope or some Vatican office recognizing that the consensus opinion of theologians is binding on souls to a moral certainty.

Quote:In other words, the proof lies in what the Church teaches:  that a consensus (the common definition of consensus implied) of theologians, and by this the Church has always meant those theologians approved by Her, is enough to give a degree of theological certainty, and that allows us to proceed with moral certitude in our beliefs.

I await the document issued by the Holy See or one of its designates that has ever taught this proposition. If you can produce one I'd be more than happy to study it and, if appropriate, change my position.

Messages In This Thread
God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell? - by StevusMagnus - 02-15-2009, 11:44 PM
God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell? - by neel - 02-17-2009, 03:26 PM
God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell? - by ONeill - 02-18-2009, 12:49 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)