Infallible Ecumenical Councils?
#11
(02-13-2010, 11:43 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Anytime a Pope or Counsel go out of their way to say things like ""We declare, pronounce, and define", under anathema or penalty of sin,  we must accept his/their interpretation, declaration, definition, pronouncement etc. as ex cathedra, i.e. from the Chair of St. Peter - without error!

The English is official only since Vatican II. Never before council or pope said or wrote: "We declare pronuce and define".  Could the infallibility depend on the translators?
Reply
#12
(02-13-2010, 02:32 PM)glgas Wrote: The English is official only since Vatican II. Never before council or pope said or wrote: "We declare pronuce and define".  Could the infallibility depend on the translators?

Not sure why you think that way......................

On the link I posted, which was promulgated Dec. 8, 1854: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm ,look at the very bottom of that link and you'll see the footnote numbered 29.

Now I am not fluent in Latin but foot note #29 plainly translates "We declare, pronounce, and define" from the original latin for you: Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.
Reply
#13
(02-13-2010, 09:22 AM)glgas Wrote: Encyiridion Symbolorum... never was considered as collection of the infallible teaching.

Don’t you find that assertion a bit specious?  Here we are the one True Church, the only Church in Christendom claiming infallible authority and yet, according to you, we don’t have a single document documenting what our one True Church truly teaches? 

But I’m game.  If what you say is true, please substantiate your assertion with documentation.  Point to some Church document that states that the Enchiridion Symbolorum does NOT contain the source material for all the infallible Catholic dogmas up until 1950.  My edition has an Nihil Obstat and Imprimature.  How official is that?  It certainly seems to trump your mere assertion to the contrary.

glgas wrote: “The Church always believed that the Magisterium had to be living Magisterium with binding and loosing power.”

Really?!  The Magisterium has to be the Living Magisterium?  Is that sort of like how the U.S. Constitution has to be a “living document”?  You know, so that modernist debased half-dead supreme court justices in the 1970’s could find in said constitution’s establishment of a right to privacy a “penumbra” that applied said right of privacy to the womb, which was to be further interpreted as not the fetus’s right to be left alone in the privacy of the womb but as the non-mother’s right to keep her womb private in the “vacancy” sense of the word, in other words, the right to privacy has morphed through our “living constitution” into the right to an abortion.  Go figure.

Haven’t we heard enough of “deeper” meanings or “fuller” explanations or “hierarchies” of truth or “living” this’s or that’s from our VCII apostate churchmen to recognize those words as the code words for anesthetizing Catholics prior to the disemboweling of Catholic truths?  When I hear the term “living document” or “deeper meaning” I reach for my gun.

glgas wrote: “To use the Denzinger as the source of Dogma is the exact same sin as the sola Scriptura of the Protestantism: putting the frozen behind the living Magisterium.  Our nature is spoiled, we need the living guidance. Only the living Magisterium can define what is infallible.”

Wow!  Never mind that the job description of the pope and his bishops is to PRESERVE the Apostolic deposit of Faith.”  Never mind that Church infallibly teaches de fide that revelation ceased with the Apostles complete and whole and, yes, frozen if you will, not to melt and evaporate away through time.  According to you, I sin in allowing myself to be guided by dearly departed Magisterium of the past 2,000 years.  According to you, I must only allow myself to be guided by the currently living Magisterium.  Where do you get this?  Do you consider yourself a Traditional Catholic? – Perplexed, Albert Cipriani ???
Reply
#14
(02-13-2010, 03:02 AM)albert Wrote:
(02-12-2010, 08:56 AM)glgas Wrote: Infallible is only what is explicitly declared infallible. I guess it is the Apostolic Creed, the Nicea-Constantinople Creed, the Roman Canon of the Mass, the Immaculate Cponception, the Assumption and the statement that the Church is not authorized to ordain females to priesthood or as bishops.

The Church has infallibly declared much much more than what you’ve listed.  :drowning: I refer you to Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma, also known as Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum published by Loreto Publications.  It’s 653 pages long.  It contains the pertinent words of all the councils and papal decrees from the Apostles’ Creed to the Pope Pius XII’s definition of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption in 1950. 

The 30th edition of this book, the one I have, is a compilation of 2,333 infallible proclamations.  And, happily, it doesn’t contain a single VCII proclamation.   :cheers:– Cheers, Albert Cipriani

Further to what you said above, the English edition contains only SOME of the whole of Denzinger.  I believe that the entire thing is still only available in Latin.
Reply
#15
(02-13-2010, 04:59 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(02-13-2010, 02:32 PM)glgas Wrote: The English is official only since Vatican II. Never before council or pope said or wrote: "We declare pronuce and define".  Could the infallibility depend on the translators?

Not sure why you think that way......................

On the link I posted, which was promulgated Dec. 8, 1854: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm ,look at the very bottom of that link and you'll see the footnote numbered 29.

Now I am not fluent in Latin but foot note #29 plainly translates "We declare, pronounce, and define" from the original latin for you: Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.

I long time ago downloaded the Latin Denzinger and collected into one file, so I can easily search for words. The three word together occurs only once

469 Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.  

(Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII, new number in the Latin 875)

875 Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, diffinimus omnino esse de necessitate salutis.

(Bad news for many here: no Pontiff, no salvation, unless they distort the words).

The declaramus in itself occurs about 3 dozen times, with one other word: definimus, decernimus, statuimus, ordinamus, pronuntiamus, ordinamus about half dozen  times.

Interestingly many time the declaremus is used


Reply
#16
Vatican I back in 1870 is actually a good read on this subject: http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

..........we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

    * when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
          o that is, when,
              1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
              2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
              3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church........


Reply
#17
(02-13-2010, 07:51 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Vatican I back in 1870 is actually a good read on this subject: http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

..........we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

    * when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
          o that is, when,
               1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
               2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
               3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church........

Indeed.  And because of Vatican I there seems to be little confusion about when a Pope has spoken infallibly.  There doesn't appear to be this sort of clarity on the issue of when the Magisterium becomes infallible, however.
Reply
#18
(02-13-2010, 09:02 PM)Walty Wrote: Because of Vatican I there seems to be little confusion about when a Pope has spoken infallibly.  There doesn't appear to be this sort of clarity on the issue of when the Magisterium becomes infallible, however.

Yes, there seems to be even more confusion about when the infallible Catholic Church is exercising her infallible charism if you, as others here, disavow Denzingers’ Enchiridion Symbolorum as an authoritative source. 

The Magisterium is only infallible when it annunciates that which it has always and everywhere annunciated.  The former qualification proves the annunciation is rooted in the Apostolic deposit of faith.  The latter qualification proves that the annunciation has always been universally taught by the Church.  Under this rubric, most everything virtually all of our current-day Magisterium teaches is not infallible and can safely be ignored.  – Cheers, Albert Cipriani
Reply
#19
(02-12-2010, 11:55 PM)albert Wrote: So wherein does the sin of ecclesiastical disobedience lie?  It lies in that gray area between infallible pronouncements and disciplinarian pronouncements… that’s what makes compulsive-obsessive neurotics out of the best of us. 

On the one hand, we Catholics claim to be in communion with and under the authority of the vicar of Christ.  Yet when the pope exercises that authority in a boneheaded way, we are conscious-bound to disobey him and take the rap of being Protestants.  This is the schizophrenic source of our Traditionalist sufferings.

Yes, dress codes and music styles (being choices that, by definition, are reformable and temporal, not irreformable and eternal) are not moral doctrines.  So did the princes in the 13th century sin who did not enforce the council’s Jewish dress code; and do the churchmen of this century sin who do not enforce the council’s music style preferences?  They disobey an ecumenical council’s pastoral directives.  In that is there no sin? 

I think there is no sin in disobeying the Church’s pastoral directives so long as we are conscious-bound to do so.  I’d really like to know if you guys agree with me on this point. 

Religious liberty seems to me to be a pastoral relativistic matter, not a doctrine of dogmatic or moral substance.  For example, in a Communist state antithetical to all religions, religious liberty would be a relative improvement.  In a democratic state open to all manner of religious cults, like a body without an immune system open to all manner of infection, some limitation of religious liberty would be relatively better. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani

So does anyone here disagree with me on this count?  Can we as Catholics safely disobey pastoral pronouncements put forth by our Church’s ecumenical councils?  Do you guys agree that there is no sin in this sort of disobedience when said disobedience is dictated by a well-formed and continually reformed conscience?  -- Albert Cipriani
Reply
#20
(02-16-2010, 06:08 PM)albert Wrote:
(02-12-2010, 11:55 PM)albert Wrote: So wherein does the sin of ecclesiastical disobedience lie?  It lies in that gray area between infallible pronouncements and disciplinarian pronouncements… that’s what makes compulsive-obsessive neurotics out of the best of us. 

On the one hand, we Catholics claim to be in communion with and under the authority of the vicar of Christ.  Yet when the pope exercises that authority in a boneheaded way, we are conscious-bound to disobey him and take the rap of being Protestants.  This is the schizophrenic source of our Traditionalist sufferings.

Yes, dress codes and music styles (being choices that, by definition, are reformable and temporal, not irreformable and eternal) are not moral doctrines.  So did the princes in the 13th century sin who did not enforce the council’s Jewish dress code; and do the churchmen of this century sin who do not enforce the council’s music style preferences?  They disobey an ecumenical council’s pastoral directives.  In that is there no sin? 

I think there is no sin in disobeying the Church’s pastoral directives so long as we are conscious-bound to do so.  I’d really like to know if you guys agree with me on this point. 

Religious liberty seems to me to be a pastoral relativistic matter, not a doctrine of dogmatic or moral substance.  For example, in a Communist state antithetical to all religions, religious liberty would be a relative improvement.  In a democratic state open to all manner of religious cults, like a body without an immune system open to all manner of infection, some limitation of religious liberty would be relatively better. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani

So does anyone here disagree with me on this count?  Can we as Catholics safely disobey pastoral pronouncements put forth by our Church’s ecumenical councils?  Do you guys agree that there is no sin in this sort of disobedience when said disobedience is dictated by a well-formed and continually reformed conscience?  -- Albert Cipriani

I believe it is not a sin to disobey or ignore directives from the Vatican which are not strictly in accord with tradition.  For this reason I believe the SSPX to be the best guide to how we must live in the modern world at present.  I think that one day the Church will recover from this terrible state and the SSPX and traditional Catholics will be vindicated for having so acted.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)