Blaming Vatican II
(07-04-2009, 01:36 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: When was slavery "promulgated"? And you have yet to define "slavery".

I have already given an example of what I am speaking of...you never commented on that specific example. Why? I also gave the example of heresy...and then you brought up slavery. Apples and oranges. Heresy is a mortal sin against the Faith..."slavery", as I referenced it, is neither against the natural or divine positive law.

It is also a fact that the Church has never sanctioned slavery nor recommended it be practised. She has always been in favor of freeing slaves because slavery almost always entails much abuse.

Now, DJR, is the failure to condemn manifest HERESY in ones own jurisdiction a sign of approval? We are speaking here of one with jusrisdiction.

I was using the term "slavery" in the manner that the popes have used it in their condemnations.  My definition of slavery is not important; it's what the popes have condemned that is important.

Be that as it may, to answer your question, "is the failure to condemn manifest HERESY in ones own jurisdiction a sign of approval," the answer is:  Not necessarily.  

Failure to condemn manifest heresy in one's own jurisdiction may be a sign of weakness as opposed to a sign of approval. 

Did you ever consider the possibility that a pope, a bishop, or a priest, all of whom have some type of jurisdiction, may be too timid to condemn the manifest heresy of one or more of their subjects even while that same pope, bishop, or priest disagreed with the heresy? 

And unless we have some knowledge of the inner disposition of the person with jurisdiction or unless the person has manifested his sentiments in some other manner, we have no way of knowing whether that person approves of the manifest heresy under his jurisdiction or whether his refusal to condemn the manifest heresy stems merely from his timidity.  Without that knowledge, any judgment on our part would be rash judgment.

The same can be said of a general council of the Church, which is made up of weak human beings.

So, that's the answer to your question. 

That's the problem with blanket statements, with no nuances, such as the one you posed.  They may not take into consideration all the various aspects of the human condition.  Failure to act on one's own convictions is, unfortunately, a common human trait.  The fact that some men have religious jurisdiction over others does not mean those men are immune from possessing that trait.
Reply
(07-04-2009, 03:19 PM)DJR Wrote:
(07-04-2009, 01:36 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: When was slavery "promulgated"? And you have yet to define "slavery".

I have already given an example of what I am speaking of...you never commented on that specific example. Why? I also gave the example of heresy...and then you brought up slavery. Apples and oranges. Heresy is a mortal sin against the Faith..."slavery", as I referenced it, is neither against the natural or divine positive law.

It is also a fact that the Church has never sanctioned slavery nor recommended it be practised. She has always been in favor of freeing slaves because slavery almost always entails much abuse.

Now, DJR, is the failure to condemn manifest HERESY in ones own jurisdiction a sign of approval? We are speaking here of one with jusrisdiction.

I was using the term "slavery" in the manner that the popes have used it in their condemnations.  My definition of slavery is not important; it's what the popes have condemned that is important.

Be that as it may, to answer your question, "is the failure to condemn manifest HERESY in ones own jurisdiction a sign of approval," the answer is:  Not necessarily.    

Failure to condemn manifest heresy in one's own jurisdiction may be a sign of weakness as opposed to a sign of approval. 

Did you ever consider the possibility that a pope, a bishop, or a priest, all of whom have some type of jurisdiction, may be too timid to condemn the manifest heresy of one or more of their subjects even while that same pope, bishop, or priest disagreed with the heresy? 

And unless we have some knowledge of the inner disposition of the person with jurisdiction or unless the person has manifested his sentiments in some other manner, we have no way of knowing whether that person approves of the manifest heresy under his jurisdiction or whether his refusal to condemn the manifest heresy stems merely from his timidity.  Without that knowledge, any judgment on our part would be rash judgment.

The same can be said of a general council of the Church, which is made up of weak human beings.

So, that's the answer to your question. 

That's the problem with blanket statements, with no nuances, such as the one you posed.  They may not take into consideration all the various aspects of the human condition.  Failure to act on one's own convictions is, unfortunately, a common human trait.  The fact that some men have religious jurisdiction over others does not mean those men are immune from possessing that trait.

And one can be condemned for that "weakness".  You are claiming that we must judge the internal disposition...that is incorrect.

"De Romano Pontifice, St. Robert Bellarmine" Wrote:"Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

Reply
(07-04-2009, 03:32 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: And one can be condemned for that "weakness".  You are claiming that we must judge the internal disposition...that is incorrect.

No, I'm not claiming that at all.  Just the opposite.  I stated that we CANNOT judge the internal disposition because "we" have no knowledge of what that disposition is unless it is made manifest to us.  First point. 

Second point:  "We" are not under a duty to condemn our superiors.

And being "condemned" for that weakness has nothing to do with what your original statement entailed.  You weren't speaking about being condemned for something; you were making the statement that failure to condemn something meant approval.  Again, your question is:  "Is the failure to condemn manifest HERESY in ones own jurisdiction a sign of approval?"

And the answer to that question is what I posted above.

"De Romano Pontifice, St. Robert Bellarmine" Wrote:"Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. [u][b]For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one[/b][/u], on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

You just made my point.  Liberius was not a heretic.  Therefore, his actions did not constitute an approval of the heresy.  They were done out of weakness.

Further, if Liberius was NOT a heretic but people judged him as if he were, those people erred, didn't they?

Exactly my point.
Reply
(07-04-2009, 03:52 PM)DJR Wrote: You just made my point.  Liberius was not a heretic.  Therefore, his actions did not constitute an approval of the heresy.  They were done out of weakness.

Further, if Liberius was NOT a heretic but people judged him as if he were, those people erred, didn't they?

Exactly my point.

I apologize; I don't mean to interfere, but did you honestly miss this?

"De Romano Pontifice, St. Robert Bellarmine" Wrote:"...For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

???


Reply
(07-04-2009, 11:15 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-04-2009, 03:52 PM)DJR Wrote: You just made my point.  Liberius was not a heretic.  Therefore, his actions did not constitute an approval of the heresy.  They were done out of weakness.

Further, if Liberius was NOT a heretic but people judged him as if he were, those people erred, didn't they?

Exactly my point.

I apologize; I don't mean to interfere, but did you honestly miss this?

"De Romano Pontifice, St. Robert Bellarmine" Wrote:"...For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

???

Yes, and if DJR doesn't see (and then admit) how he has misread or misunderstood something so clear...I can't see any point in continuing this discussion.
Reply
"DJR" Wrote:No, I'm not claiming that at all.  Just the opposite.  I stated that we CANNOT judge the internal disposition because "we" have no knowledge of what that disposition is unless it is made manifest to us.  First point.

You cannot KNOW someone's internal disposition except by his external acts. And the internal can certainly can be made manifest by external acts.

"DJR" Wrote:Second point:  "We" are not under a duty to condemn our superiors.

The example I gave was the duty of a superior to correct subordinates for grave errors...not  a subordinate condemning his superiors.
Reply
(07-04-2009, 11:15 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-04-2009, 03:52 PM)DJR Wrote: You just made my point.  Liberius was not a heretic.  Therefore, his actions did not constitute an approval of the heresy.  They were done out of weakness.

Further, if Liberius was NOT a heretic but people judged him as if he were, those people erred, didn't they?

Exactly my point.

I apologize; I don't mean to interfere, but did you honestly miss this?

"De Romano Pontifice, St. Robert Bellarmine" Wrote:"...For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

???
  That wasn't the point of the discussion, number one.  Number two, it's a writing from Saint Robert Bellarmine and is not binding on anyone.
Reply
(07-05-2009, 06:16 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-04-2009, 11:15 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-04-2009, 03:52 PM)DJR Wrote: You just made my point.  Liberius was not a heretic.  Therefore, his actions did not constitute an approval of the heresy.  They were done out of weakness.

Further, if Liberius was NOT a heretic but people judged him as if he were, those people erred, didn't they?

Exactly my point.

I apologize; I don't mean to interfere, but did you honestly miss this?

"De Romano Pontifice, St. Robert Bellarmine" Wrote:"...For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

???

Yes, and if DJR doesn't see (and then admit) how he has misread or misunderstood something so clear...I can't see any point in continuing this discussion.

Not at all.  You changed the point.  I was commenting on one, and only one, statement from you above, and your statement was too broad.  That's all I was saying.

Your quote:  "A failure to condemn is approval. This principle has always been applied in the Church."

According to that statement, the Catholic Church approves of the new Mass, as the new Mass has never been condemned by the Church. Thus, if the Church approves of the new Mass, why do you oppose it?

So, keeping in mind your statement that "a failure to condemn is approval" and that "this principle has always been applied in the Church," and also keeping in mind that the new Mass has never been condemned by the Church, what would be your answer to the question, "Is the new Mass approved by the Catholic Church?"

Can you see the problem in a blanket application of your statement?  That's the only thing I intended to point out, and nothing else.

That's also why I brought up the topic of Monsignor Lefebvre.  Regardless of whether one believes he signed the documents on DH and Rel Lib, it is nowhere disputed that he signed the other documents.  And those documents also contain statements that members of the SSPX consider heretical, statements that Archbishop Lefebvre opposed even though he signed the documents.

And if he did sign DH and Rel Lib, which, as I stated before, the research demonstrates that he did (it's admitted by members of the SSPX), and if those documents contain heretical statements, that means that Archbishop Lefebvre put his signature to heretical statements, which would be one of those manifest acts that you assert show his internal disposition.  In other words, we would have to judge him a heretic.

I don't believe he was a heretic, regardless of how many Vatican II documents he signed.
Reply
(07-05-2009, 08:16 PM)DJR Wrote:
(07-04-2009, 11:15 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-04-2009, 03:52 PM)DJR Wrote: You just made my point.  Liberius was not a heretic.  Therefore, his actions did not constitute an approval of the heresy.  They were done out of weakness.

Further, if Liberius was NOT a heretic but people judged him as if he were, those people erred, didn't they?

Exactly my point.

I apologize; I don't mean to interfere, but did you honestly miss this?

"De Romano Pontifice, St. Robert Bellarmine" Wrote:"...For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

???
  That wasn't the point of the discussion, number one.  Number two, it's a writing from Saint Robert Bellarmine and is not binding on anyone.

Number one, you misread Bellarmine. Admit it.

Number two, he is the foremost authority on the papacy since the reformation. He is a Doctor of the Universal Church as well.
Reply
(07-05-2009, 08:41 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-05-2009, 08:16 PM)DJR Wrote:
(07-04-2009, 11:15 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-04-2009, 03:52 PM)DJR Wrote: You just made my point.  Liberius was not a heretic.  Therefore, his actions did not constitute an approval of the heresy.  They were done out of weakness.

Further, if Liberius was NOT a heretic but people judged him as if he were, those people erred, didn't they?

Exactly my point.

I apologize; I don't mean to interfere, but did you honestly miss this?

"De Romano Pontifice, St. Robert Bellarmine" Wrote:"...For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

???
  That wasn't the point of the discussion, number one.  Number two, it's a writing from Saint Robert Bellarmine and is not binding on anyone.

Number one, you misread Bellarmine. Admit it.

Number two, he is the foremost authority on the papacy since the reformation. He is a Doctor of the Universal Church as well.

No, I didn't misread him.  Number two, it matters not that "he is the foremost authority on the papacy since the reformation," (which is merely your opinion anyway). I'm not bound by his statement.  Neither are you.  It doesn't comprise Catholic doctrine.

What is your answer to my prior post?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)