Bp W Column, 5.30.09
Quote:Infallibility is not engaged should he promote beliefs that are novel or contradictory to the Catholic Faith.

Infallibility PROTECTS the pope from errors in faith and morals, including the disciplines of the Church. You are just flat wrong about this.

"Scheeben" Wrote:The nature and extent of the Infallibility of the Pope are also contained in the definition. This Infallibility is the result of a Divine assistance. It differs both from Revelation and Inspiration. It does not involve the manifestation of any new doctrine, or the impulse to write down what God reveals. It supposes, on the contrary, an investigation of revealed truths, and only prevents the Pope from omitting this investigation and from erring in making it. The Divine assistance is not granted to the Pope for his personal benefit, but for the benefit of the Church.
Reply
Quote:Infallibility is always engaged.

I think it is better to say that indefectibility is always engaged.  In this sense, the magisterium can't defect from faith or teach heresy.  But infallibility can be "engaged" when the magisterium expressly teaches in a definitive manner.  When they do not teach in a definitive manner there is still the possibility of error in the prudential order -- but never contrary to faith and morals, per se.  This is how infallibility and indefectibility are harmonized. 
Reply
(06-02-2009, 02:00 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:Van Noort, whom you previously appealed to, in his Dogmatic Theology states that: "All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith or morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined." The possibility of the error in faith or morals is, of course, limited to the Authentic Magisterium.

No, Van Noort is referring here to Popes speaking or teaching in a private capacity -- not in a magisterial capacity.  For example, JPII and Benedict XVI have written theological works as private theologians -- even as they were Popes (Theology of the Body, Jesus of Nazareth).  Since these are outside the authentic magisterium of the Popes one could potentially find mistakes or some theological error.  The magisterium, on the other hand, can't defect from the faith by teaching heresy according to the divine assistance promised by Our Lord.  The authentic magisterium can err in the prudential order, however, this does not equate to errors in faith or morals, per se, or the teaching of heresy. 

And you realize that IF a pope became a heretic in his private capacity he would be just like any other heretic; outside the Church by his own act. This is found in Van Noort, the CE, and is held by all the Fathers based on the very definition of heresy. Innocently or mistakenly saying something that actually is heretical does not make one a heretic.

"De Romano Pontifice" Wrote:"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.
Reply
(06-02-2009, 02:36 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:Infallibility is always engaged.

I think it is better to say that indefectibility is always engaged.  In this sense, the magisterium can't defect from faith or teach heresy.  But infallibility can be "engaged" when the magisterium expressly teaches in a definitive manner.  When they do not teach in a definitive manner there is still the possibility of error in the prudential order -- but never contrary to faith and morals, per se.  This is how infallibility and indefectibility are harmonized.   

No, I think it better to state that the charism of infallibility is not something that the Pope engages...it is a charism that is always there.

"Scheeben" Wrote:The nature and extent of the Infallibility of the Pope are also contained in the definition. This Infallibility is the result of a Divine assistance. It differs both from Revelation and Inspiration. It does not involve the manifestation of any new doctrine, or the impulse to write down what God reveals. It supposes, on the contrary, an investigation of revealed truths, and only prevents the Pope from omitting this investigation and from erring in making it. The Divine assistance is not granted to the Pope for his personal benefit, but for the benefit of the Church.
Reply
(06-02-2009, 02:48 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 02:00 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:Van Noort, whom you previously appealed to, in his Dogmatic Theology states that: "All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith or morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined." The possibility of the error in faith or morals is, of course, limited to the Authentic Magisterium.

No, Van Noort is referring here to Popes speaking or teaching in a private capacity -- not in a magisterial capacity.  For example, JPII and Benedict XVI have written theological works as private theologians -- even as they were Popes (Theology of the Body, Jesus of Nazareth).  Since these are outside the authentic magisterium of the Popes one could potentially find mistakes or some theological error.  The magisterium, on the other hand, can't defect from the faith by teaching heresy according to the divine assistance promised by Our Lord.  The authentic magisterium can err in the prudential order, however, this does not equate to errors in faith or morals, per se, or the teaching of heresy. 

And you realize that IF a pope became a heretic in his private capacity he would be just like any other heretic; outside the Church by his own act. This is found in Van Noort, the CE, and is held by all the Fathers based on the very definition of heresy. Innocently or mistakenly saying something that actually is heretical does not make one a heretic.

"De Romano Pontifice" Wrote:"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.

No, not a private heretic.  I said that there can be theological error in the capacity of private theologian -- but such errors would never equate to heresies against the dogmas of the faith.
Reply
(06-02-2009, 02:56 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 02:48 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 02:00 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:Van Noort, whom you previously appealed to, in his Dogmatic Theology states that: "All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith or morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined." The possibility of the error in faith or morals is, of course, limited to the Authentic Magisterium.

No, Van Noort is referring here to Popes speaking or teaching in a private capacity -- not in a magisterial capacity.  For example, JPII and Benedict XVI have written theological works as private theologians -- even as they were Popes (Theology of the Body, Jesus of Nazareth).  Since these are outside the authentic magisterium of the Popes one could potentially find mistakes or some theological error.  The magisterium, on the other hand, can't defect from the faith by teaching heresy according to the divine assistance promised by Our Lord.  The authentic magisterium can err in the prudential order, however, this does not equate to errors in faith or morals, per se, or the teaching of heresy. 

And you realize that IF a pope became a heretic in his private capacity he would be just like any other heretic; outside the Church by his own act. This is found in Van Noort, the CE, and is held by all the Fathers based on the very definition of heresy. Innocently or mistakenly saying something that actually is heretical does not make one a heretic.

"De Romano Pontifice" Wrote:"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.

No, not a private heretic.  I said that there can be theological error in the capacity of private theologian -- but such errors would never equate to heresies against the dogmas of the faith.

I don't know where you are getting the term "private heretic"? 

If that "theological error" is heretical and it is held with pertinacity...the holder is a heretic, no matter who he is.
Reply
Quote:No, I think it better to state that the charism of infallibility is not something that the Pope engages...it is a charism that is always there.

Yes, agreed.  But the charism (always there) must be employed.  This charism is employed when the Pope teaches on faith or morals in a definitive manner.  Outside of this there can be errors of a practical and prudential nature -- but never against the dogmas of the faith.  On the other hand, when the magisterium teaches in a definitive manner it necessarily excludes the possiblity of prudential error insofar as it defines aspects of faith or morals, per se.  There is no admixture of contingent and variable aspects and therefore no possibility of error of any kind (i.e., infallible).
Reply
(06-02-2009, 03:10 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 02:56 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 02:48 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 02:00 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:Van Noort, whom you previously appealed to, in his Dogmatic Theology states that: "All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith or morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined." The possibility of the error in faith or morals is, of course, limited to the Authentic Magisterium.

No, Van Noort is referring here to Popes speaking or teaching in a private capacity -- not in a magisterial capacity.  For example, JPII and Benedict XVI have written theological works as private theologians -- even as they were Popes (Theology of the Body, Jesus of Nazareth).  Since these are outside the authentic magisterium of the Popes one could potentially find mistakes or some theological error.  The magisterium, on the other hand, can't defect from the faith by teaching heresy according to the divine assistance promised by Our Lord.  The authentic magisterium can err in the prudential order, however, this does not equate to errors in faith or morals, per se, or the teaching of heresy. 

And you realize that IF a pope became a heretic in his private capacity he would be just like any other heretic; outside the Church by his own act. This is found in Van Noort, the CE, and is held by all the Fathers based on the very definition of heresy. Innocently or mistakenly saying something that actually is heretical does not make one a heretic.

"De Romano Pontifice" Wrote:"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.

No, not a private heretic.  I said that there can be theological error in the capacity of private theologian -- but such errors would never equate to heresies against the dogmas of the faith.

If that "theological error" is heretical and it is held with pertinacity...the holder is a heretic, no matter who he is.

Such error would never be heretical in nature.
Reply
(06-02-2009, 03:14 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 03:10 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 02:56 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 02:48 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 02:00 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:Van Noort, whom you previously appealed to, in his Dogmatic Theology states that: "All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith or morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined." The possibility of the error in faith or morals is, of course, limited to the Authentic Magisterium.

No, Van Noort is referring here to Popes speaking or teaching in a private capacity -- not in a magisterial capacity.  For example, JPII and Benedict XVI have written theological works as private theologians -- even as they were Popes (Theology of the Body, Jesus of Nazareth).  Since these are outside the authentic magisterium of the Popes one could potentially find mistakes or some theological error.  The magisterium, on the other hand, can't defect from the faith by teaching heresy according to the divine assistance promised by Our Lord.  The authentic magisterium can err in the prudential order, however, this does not equate to errors in faith or morals, per se, or the teaching of heresy. 

And you realize that IF a pope became a heretic in his private capacity he would be just like any other heretic; outside the Church by his own act. This is found in Van Noort, the CE, and is held by all the Fathers based on the very definition of heresy. Innocently or mistakenly saying something that actually is heretical does not make one a heretic.

"De Romano Pontifice" Wrote:"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.

No, not a private heretic.  I said that there can be theological error in the capacity of private theologian -- but such errors would never equate to heresies against the dogmas of the faith.

If that "theological error" is heretical and it is held with pertinacity...the holder is a heretic, no matter who he is.

Such error would never be heretical in nature.

That's the pious belief.

"St. Robert Bellarmine" Wrote:This opinion (that the Pope could not become an heretic [as a private person]) is probable and easily defended … Nonetheless, in view of the fact that this is not certain, and that the common opinion is the opposite one, it is useful to examine the solution to this question, within the hypothesis that the Pope can be an heretic.
Reply
(06-02-2009, 03:18 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 03:14 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 03:10 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 02:56 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 02:48 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 02:00 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:Van Noort, whom you previously appealed to, in his Dogmatic Theology states that: "All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith or morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined." The possibility of the error in faith or morals is, of course, limited to the Authentic Magisterium.

No, Van Noort is referring here to Popes speaking or teaching in a private capacity -- not in a magisterial capacity.  For example, JPII and Benedict XVI have written theological works as private theologians -- even as they were Popes (Theology of the Body, Jesus of Nazareth).  Since these are outside the authentic magisterium of the Popes one could potentially find mistakes or some theological error.  The magisterium, on the other hand, can't defect from the faith by teaching heresy according to the divine assistance promised by Our Lord.  The authentic magisterium can err in the prudential order, however, this does not equate to errors in faith or morals, per se, or the teaching of heresy. 

And you realize that IF a pope became a heretic in his private capacity he would be just like any other heretic; outside the Church by his own act. This is found in Van Noort, the CE, and is held by all the Fathers based on the very definition of heresy. Innocently or mistakenly saying something that actually is heretical does not make one a heretic.

"De Romano Pontifice" Wrote:"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.

No, not a private heretic.  I said that there can be theological error in the capacity of private theologian -- but such errors would never equate to heresies against the dogmas of the faith.

If that "theological error" is heretical and it is held with pertinacity...the holder is a heretic, no matter who he is.

Such error would never be heretical in nature.

That's the pious belief.

"St. Robert Bellarmine" Wrote:This opinion (that the Pope could not become an heretic [as a private person]) is probable and easily defended … Nonetheless, in view of the fact that this is not certain, and that the common opinion is the opposite one, it is useful to examine the solution to this question, within the hypothesis that the Pope can be an heretic.

I am not only relying on Bellarmine here.  I refer to PA and Bishop Gasser's relatio.  After summarizing Bellarmine's position he states:

"...the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourch place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion."

Therefore, the "most common and certain opinion" in the time of Bellarmine has been affimed by the First Vatican Council in the teaching of PA, Chapter IV.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)