Authority of Vatican 2
#21
(11-11-2019, 12:52 AM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 11:02 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: MOST Byzantines I know would concur with my assessment of the ecumenical councils. And I further would point out the hypocrisy of Latins who would assess this current Pope as a heretic and yet simultaneously insist that all other papal decrees are infallible. Vatican I is problematic on the basis that it was never even formally completed. I do not see how it could be held binding any more than Vatican II.

1) I doubt that most Byzantine Catholics are heretics, but even if they are it doesn't make them right, it just makes them heretics. 2) Who here has ever claimed that 'all other papal decrees are infallible'? I don't recall anyone in the almost 14 years I've been swimming in the Tank claiming that. And, 3) what in the world does the First Vatican Council not having been completed have to do with it? The Decrees were voted on, passed, signed and promulgated by the Holy Father. Several Bishops left Rome in order not to be seen to agree with with the Decree Pastor Æternus (On Infallibility), but only two voted non placet (no), both Latins. As far as I know ALL of the Eastern Rite Bishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs voted placet (yes).

But now, crypto-orthodox heretics are teaching you doctrine that is opposed to the Catholic Faith. I suggest you get out of there and find yourself a Catholic Priest of whatever Rite to receive you into the Catholic Church, not some crypto-orthodox heretical conventicle. Or, alternatively, just go to an Orthodox Church. You'll have the same heretical doctrine without the hypocrisy of pretending it's Catholic.

If I believe it heresy then I would go Orthodox. If it is heresy to the Church I claim faith to, then I trust God will sort out the confusion. Do I believe it heresy? The history of church tradition suggests your position is the one that has tampered. I maintain the faith of the first millennium.

Since Holy God has given us the rule of faith, it’s a presumptuous cop out and depend on him to sort things out as mature adults.  If we’re confirmed, we must boldly confess, never shrinking.  That means we can’t depend on the words of a fallible source, like a lay catechist or even a priest.  We have to discern as adults.

Maybe you’re not confirmed yet, and that could be why you struggle so with the rule of faith.
Reply
#22
(11-11-2019, 12:52 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: I maintain the faith of the first millennium.

If you believe that your anti-papalism is the faith of the first millennium, I suggest you read these Eastern Fathers to find out what it really was.

The Primacy of Peter

It is the East that has left the Faith of the first millennium, whilst Rome has preserved it.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • Imperator Caesar Trump, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#23
(11-11-2019, 01:16 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 12:52 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: I maintain the faith of the first millennium.

If you believe that your anti-papalism is the faith of the first millennium, I suggest you read these Eastern Fathers to find out what it really was.

The Primacy of Peter

It is the East that has left the Faith of the first millennium, whilst Rome has preserved it.

I am not anti-papalist. Never once have I expressed any anti-papalist. The pope did not reign as supreme monarch of the Church in the first millennium. Even Eamonn Duffy admits that.
Reply
#24
(11-11-2019, 01:09 AM)yablabo Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 12:52 AM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 11:02 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: MOST Byzantines I know would concur with my assessment of the ecumenical councils. And I further would point out the hypocrisy of Latins who would assess this current Pope as a heretic and yet simultaneously insist that all other papal decrees are infallible. Vatican I is problematic on the basis that it was never even formally completed. I do not see how it could be held binding any more than Vatican II.

1) I doubt that most Byzantine Catholics are heretics, but even if they are it doesn't make them right, it just makes them heretics. 2) Who here has ever claimed that 'all other papal decrees are infallible'? I don't recall anyone in the almost 14 years I've been swimming in the Tank claiming that. And, 3) what in the world does the First Vatican Council not having been completed have to do with it? The Decrees were voted on, passed, signed and promulgated by the Holy Father. Several Bishops left Rome in order not to be seen to agree with with the Decree Pastor Æternus (On Infallibility), but only two voted non placet (no), both Latins. As far as I know ALL of the Eastern Rite Bishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs voted placet (yes).

But now, crypto-orthodox heretics are teaching you doctrine that is opposed to the Catholic Faith. I suggest you get out of there and find yourself a Catholic Priest of whatever Rite to receive you into the Catholic Church, not some crypto-orthodox heretical conventicle. Or, alternatively, just go to an Orthodox Church. You'll have the same heretical doctrine without the hypocrisy of pretending it's Catholic.

If I believe it heresy then I would go Orthodox. If it is heresy to the Church I claim faith to, then I trust God will sort out the confusion. Do I believe it heresy? The history of church tradition suggests your position is the one that has tampered. I maintain the faith of the first millennium.

Since Holy God has given us the rule of faith, it’s a presumptuous cop out and depend on him to sort things out as mature adults.  If we’re confirmed, we must boldly confess, never shrinking.  That means we can’t depend on the words of a fallible source, like a lay catechist or even a priest.  We have to discern as adults.

Maybe you’re not confirmed yet, and that could be why you struggle so with the rule of faith.
I am being received through the Ukrainian Byzantine rite. I will be Orthodox in Union with Rome. If the Eastern faith bothers you, then why were we allowed into the church in the first place?
Reply
#25
(11-11-2019, 01:27 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: I am being received through the Ukrainian Byzantine rite. I will be Orthodox in Union with Rome. If the Eastern faith bothers you, then why were we allowed into the church in the first place?

Nothing about the Eastern Catholic Faith bothers me. I am a former Orthodox, juridically Serbian Rite, subject in the US to the Ruthenian Eparch of Parma. When I was in Canada, I was subject to the Ukrainian Eparch of Edmonton.

What bothers me is this anti-Catholic 'Orthodox in Union with Rome' crap that inevitably conceals crypto-orthodox heresy. I quit participating in Byzantine 'Catholic' fora and FB groups because there were so few actual Catholics in them. Most of the people posting were actually Orthodox pretending to be Catholics who were 'Orthodox in union with Rome'

It's quite simple, really. You can be Catholic or you can be Orthodox. You can't be both. Either you're Catholic or you ain't, and the 'Orthodox in union with Rome' ain't!
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
#26
(11-11-2019, 12:57 AM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 12:04 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: And I further would point out the hypocrisy of Latins who would assess this current Pope as a heretic and yet simultaneously insist that all other papal decrees are infallible.

It's not hypocrisy, because we don't insist this.

As you may read in many places infallibility is an extremely limited negative charism of the Pope. If he defines something on Faith or Morals as needing to be believed by all because it is a revealed truth, then he can't be wrong. Aside from this, he can be wrong, and even fall into personal heresy. He just cannot bind the Church to profess heresy as truth.

So your whole characterization is wrong, and I'd bet this is because that's what you've been taught by this supposed "catechist".

(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Vatican I is problematic on the basis that it was never even formally completed. I do not see how it could be held binding any more than Vatican II.

So, just because the last schema on the Church was never discussed or approved, even though all the formalities for the other documents were completed it somehow invalidates the others? How's that?

If I am tasked with completing three essays for a course, and fail to turn in one essay because of some pressing issue, but still earn passing marks, does this call into question the validity of my passing mark?

Totally arbitrary standard to question Vatican I. I would point out to willfully doubt what it teaches as revealed truth is heresy.

But whether it was completed or not according to your judgement doesn't really matter. The Pope made these decrees his own by his approval. What they therefore define as "of Faith" are thus formally defined by the Pope, and so completion of the Council doesn't affect them.

Even Lord Acton died in full communion with the Church. You state that my questioning its authority is arbitrary ignoring the first millennium rules on what makes a council ecumenically binding and then stating arbitrarily that the pope made the decrees infallible by his approval. So really the authority of Vatican I is based on circular reasoning?

I'm guessing you're willing to admit that you were mischaracterizing Latins, since you decided not to respond to that point, which was the main thrust.

I also never said that Papal Infallibility was based on Vatican I.

Just like Nicea it did not create the notion of the Divinity of the Son of God, but affirmed the Truth that always existed against errors, Vatican I affirmed the truth of Papal Infallibility. That one can cite a Magisterial document is useful and should be proof, but the truth of the matter is prior and independent to the definition. The definition merely confirms this for the benefit of those who might doubt.

Acton died in the Church because he never denied Papal Infallibility, unlike Döllinger. He opposed its definition, and then went silent. He continued to attend Mass and remain united to the Church. He was not alone, and even bishops who opposed it before Vatican I fell into line afterward. I should point out that this was not because they denied it's truth, but they thought it dangerous to define as such. That's a fine position to hold, by the way. It was the recently canonized John Henry Newman's view.
Reply
#27
(11-11-2019, 01:37 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 12:57 AM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 12:04 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: And I further would point out the hypocrisy of Latins who would assess this current Pope as a heretic and yet simultaneously insist that all other papal decrees are infallible.

It's not hypocrisy, because we don't insist this.

As you may read in many places infallibility is an extremely limited negative charism of the Pope. If he defines something on Faith or Morals as needing to be believed by all because it is a revealed truth, then he can't be wrong. Aside from this, he can be wrong, and even fall into personal heresy. He just cannot bind the Church to profess heresy as truth.

So your whole characterization is wrong, and I'd bet this is because that's what you've been taught by this supposed "catechist".

(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Vatican I is problematic on the basis that it was never even formally completed. I do not see how it could be held binding any more than Vatican II.

So, just because the last schema on the Church was never discussed or approved, even though all the formalities for the other documents were completed it somehow invalidates the others? How's that?

If I am tasked with completing three essays for a course, and fail to turn in one essay because of some pressing issue, but still earn passing marks, does this call into question the validity of my passing mark?

Totally arbitrary standard to question Vatican I. I would point out to willfully doubt what it teaches as revealed truth is heresy.

But whether it was completed or not according to your judgement doesn't really matter. The Pope made these decrees his own by his approval. What they therefore define as "of Faith" are thus formally defined by the Pope, and so completion of the Council doesn't affect them.

Even Lord Acton died in full communion with the Church. You state that my questioning its authority is arbitrary ignoring the first millennium rules on what makes a council ecumenically binding and then stating arbitrarily that the pope made the decrees infallible by his approval. So really the authority of Vatican I is based on circular reasoning?

I'm guessing you're willing to admit that you were mischaracterizing Latins, since you decided not to respond to that point, which was the main thrust.

I also never said that Papal Infallibility was based on Vatican I.

Just like Nicea it did not create the notion of the Divinity of the Son of God, but affirmed the Truth that always existed against errors, Vatican I affirmed the truth of Papal Infallibility. That one can cite a Magisterial document is useful and should be proof, but the truth of the matter is prior and independent to the definition. The definition merely confirms this for the benefit of those who might doubt.

Acton died in the Church because he never denied Papal Infallibility, unlike Döllinger. He opposed its definition, and then went silent. He continued to attend Mass and remain united to the Church. He was not alone, and even bishops who opposed it before Vatican I fell into line afterward. I should point out that this was not because they denied it's truth, but they thought it dangerous to define as such. That's a fine position to hold, by the way. It was the recently canonized John Henry Newman's view.
I never denied papal infallibility either. I said papal infallibility is derived from the infallibility of the Church. Re-read my first comment on this point. Such also brings the doctrine in alignment with the views of the first millennium.
Reply
#28
(11-11-2019, 02:09 AM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 01:37 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 12:57 AM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 12:04 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: And I further would point out the hypocrisy of Latins who would assess this current Pope as a heretic and yet simultaneously insist that all other papal decrees are infallible.

It's not hypocrisy, because we don't insist this.

As you may read in many places infallibility is an extremely limited negative charism of the Pope. If he defines something on Faith or Morals as needing to be believed by all because it is a revealed truth, then he can't be wrong. Aside from this, he can be wrong, and even fall into personal heresy. He just cannot bind the Church to profess heresy as truth.

So your whole characterization is wrong, and I'd bet this is because that's what you've been taught by this supposed "catechist".

(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Vatican I is problematic on the basis that it was never even formally completed. I do not see how it could be held binding any more than Vatican II.

So, just because the last schema on the Church was never discussed or approved, even though all the formalities for the other documents were completed it somehow invalidates the others? How's that?

If I am tasked with completing three essays for a course, and fail to turn in one essay because of some pressing issue, but still earn passing marks, does this call into question the validity of my passing mark?

Totally arbitrary standard to question Vatican I. I would point out to willfully doubt what it teaches as revealed truth is heresy.

But whether it was completed or not according to your judgement doesn't really matter. The Pope made these decrees his own by his approval. What they therefore define as "of Faith" are thus formally defined by the Pope, and so completion of the Council doesn't affect them.

Even Lord Acton died in full communion with the Church. You state that my questioning its authority is arbitrary ignoring the first millennium rules on what makes a council ecumenically binding and then stating arbitrarily that the pope made the decrees infallible by his approval. So really the authority of Vatican I is based on circular reasoning?

I'm guessing you're willing to admit that you were mischaracterizing Latins, since you decided not to respond to that point, which was the main thrust.

I also never said that Papal Infallibility was based on Vatican I.

Just like Nicea it did not create the notion of the Divinity of the Son of God, but affirmed the Truth that always existed against errors, Vatican I affirmed the truth of Papal Infallibility. That one can cite a Magisterial document is useful and should be proof, but the truth of the matter is prior and independent to the definition. The definition merely confirms this for the benefit of those who might doubt.

Acton died in the Church because he never denied Papal Infallibility, unlike Döllinger. He opposed its definition, and then went silent. He continued to attend Mass and remain united to the Church. He was not alone, and even bishops who opposed it before Vatican I fell into line afterward. I should point out that this was not because they denied it's truth, but they thought it dangerous to define as such. That's a fine position to hold, by the way. It was the recently canonized John Henry Newman's view.

I never denied papal infallibility either. I said papal infallibility is derived from the infallibility of the Church. Re-read my first comment on this point. Such also brings the doctrine in alignment with the views of the first millennium.

I never claimed that you did deny it, but if the Pope is infallible, then would than not mean that you have to accept the other Councils as dogmatic, since they were approved by the Pope ... hence the second part of my statement.

If Trent's dogmatic statements, for instance, were approved by the various Popes, then why quibble over saying that Trent is dogmatic? (yes, I am assuming you would say that, but then that's because you previously claimed everything after Nicea II was not dogmatic).
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#29
(11-11-2019, 02:33 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 02:09 AM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 01:37 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 12:57 AM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 12:04 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: And I further would point out the hypocrisy of Latins who would assess this current Pope as a heretic and yet simultaneously insist that all other papal decrees are infallible.

It's not hypocrisy, because we don't insist this.

As you may read in many places infallibility is an extremely limited negative charism of the Pope. If he defines something on Faith or Morals as needing to be believed by all because it is a revealed truth, then he can't be wrong. Aside from this, he can be wrong, and even fall into personal heresy. He just cannot bind the Church to profess heresy as truth.

So your whole characterization is wrong, and I'd bet this is because that's what you've been taught by this supposed "catechist".

(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Vatican I is problematic on the basis that it was never even formally completed. I do not see how it could be held binding any more than Vatican II.

So, just because the last schema on the Church was never discussed or approved, even though all the formalities for the other documents were completed it somehow invalidates the others? How's that?

If I am tasked with completing three essays for a course, and fail to turn in one essay because of some pressing issue, but still earn passing marks, does this call into question the validity of my passing mark?

Totally arbitrary standard to question Vatican I. I would point out to willfully doubt what it teaches as revealed truth is heresy.

But whether it was completed or not according to your judgement doesn't really matter. The Pope made these decrees his own by his approval. What they therefore define as "of Faith" are thus formally defined by the Pope, and so completion of the Council doesn't affect them.

Even Lord Acton died in full communion with the Church. You state that my questioning its authority is arbitrary ignoring the first millennium rules on what makes a council ecumenically binding and then stating arbitrarily that the pope made the decrees infallible by his approval. So really the authority of Vatican I is based on circular reasoning?

I'm guessing you're willing to admit that you were mischaracterizing Latins, since you decided not to respond to that point, which was the main thrust.

I also never said that Papal Infallibility was based on Vatican I.

Just like Nicea it did not create the notion of the Divinity of the Son of God, but affirmed the Truth that always existed against errors, Vatican I affirmed the truth of Papal Infallibility. That one can cite a Magisterial document is useful and should be proof, but the truth of the matter is prior and independent to the definition. The definition merely confirms this for the benefit of those who might doubt.

Acton died in the Church because he never denied Papal Infallibility, unlike Döllinger. He opposed its definition, and then went silent. He continued to attend Mass and remain united to the Church. He was not alone, and even bishops who opposed it before Vatican I fell into line afterward. I should point out that this was not because they denied it's truth, but they thought it dangerous to define as such. That's a fine position to hold, by the way. It was the recently canonized John Henry Newman's view.

I never denied papal infallibility either. I said papal infallibility is derived from the infallibility of the Church. Re-read my first comment on this point. Such also brings the doctrine in alignment with the views of the first millennium.

I never claimed that you did deny it, but if the Pope is infallible, then would than not mean that you have to accept the other Councils as dogmatic, since they were approved by the Pope ... hence the second part of my statement.

If Trent's dogmatic statements, for instance, were approved by the various Popes, then why quibble over saying that Trent is dogmatic? (yes, I am assuming you would say that, but then that's because you previously claimed everything after Nicea II was not dogmatic).
No. Because my understanding on papal infallibility is that being derived from the church, the statements on those local councils that are in conformity with the Church are already orthodox.
Reply
#30
(11-11-2019, 02:33 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 02:09 AM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 01:37 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 12:57 AM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 12:04 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: And I further would point out the hypocrisy of Latins who would assess this current Pope as a heretic and yet simultaneously insist that all other papal decrees are infallible.

It's not hypocrisy, because we don't insist this.

As you may read in many places infallibility is an extremely limited negative charism of the Pope. If he defines something on Faith or Morals as needing to be believed by all because it is a revealed truth, then he can't be wrong. Aside from this, he can be wrong, and even fall into personal heresy. He just cannot bind the Church to profess heresy as truth.

So your whole characterization is wrong, and I'd bet this is because that's what you've been taught by this supposed "catechist".

(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Vatican I is problematic on the basis that it was never even formally completed. I do not see how it could be held binding any more than Vatican II.

So, just because the last schema on the Church was never discussed or approved, even though all the formalities for the other documents were completed it somehow invalidates the others? How's that?

If I am tasked with completing three essays for a course, and fail to turn in one essay because of some pressing issue, but still earn passing marks, does this call into question the validity of my passing mark?

Totally arbitrary standard to question Vatican I. I would point out to willfully doubt what it teaches as revealed truth is heresy.

But whether it was completed or not according to your judgement doesn't really matter. The Pope made these decrees his own by his approval. What they therefore define as "of Faith" are thus formally defined by the Pope, and so completion of the Council doesn't affect them.

Even Lord Acton died in full communion with the Church. You state that my questioning its authority is arbitrary ignoring the first millennium rules on what makes a council ecumenically binding and then stating arbitrarily that the pope made the decrees infallible by his approval. So really the authority of Vatican I is based on circular reasoning?

I'm guessing you're willing to admit that you were mischaracterizing Latins, since you decided not to respond to that point, which was the main thrust.

I also never said that Papal Infallibility was based on Vatican I.

Just like Nicea it did not create the notion of the Divinity of the Son of God, but affirmed the Truth that always existed against errors, Vatican I affirmed the truth of Papal Infallibility. That one can cite a Magisterial document is useful and should be proof, but the truth of the matter is prior and independent to the definition. The definition merely confirms this for the benefit of those who might doubt.

Acton died in the Church because he never denied Papal Infallibility, unlike Döllinger. He opposed its definition, and then went silent. He continued to attend Mass and remain united to the Church. He was not alone, and even bishops who opposed it before Vatican I fell into line afterward. I should point out that this was not because they denied it's truth, but they thought it dangerous to define as such. That's a fine position to hold, by the way. It was the recently canonized John Henry Newman's view.

I never denied papal infallibility either. I said papal infallibility is derived from the infallibility of the Church. Re-read my first comment on this point. Such also brings the doctrine in alignment with the views of the first millennium.

I never claimed that you did deny it, but if the Pope is infallible, then would than not mean that you have to accept the other Councils as dogmatic, since they were approved by the Pope ... hence the second part of my statement.

If Trent's dogmatic statements, for instance, were approved by the various Popes, then why quibble over saying that Trent is dogmatic? (yes, I am assuming you would say that, but then that's because you previously claimed everything after Nicea II was not dogmatic).
No. Because my understanding on papal infallibility is that being derived from the church, the statements on those local councils that are in conformity with the Church are already orthodox.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)