Infallible Ecumenical Councils?
#21
(02-16-2010, 06:01 PM)albert Wrote:
(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.
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
Maybe the question is not so much whether the Magisterium is teaching infallible decrees but if we as faithful Catholics should look to others for spiritual guidance.  I know some Novus Ordo priests who are Godly, so why wouldn't I take their advice..even if at times I may not agree completely with them.  I think God is happy when we submit to someone else...that way we keep in check the fact that we are not God.  It's the only way to do it.
Reply
#22
(02-18-2010, 06:10 PM)Locke Wrote: I know some Novus Ordo priests who are Godly, so why wouldn't I take their advice... even if at times I may not agree completely with them.

The best reason NOT to take the advice of others is that in so doing you disparage God’s greatest gift in you, your free will.  Lesser reasons no to take the advice of other is that such behavior abdicates the role of process in your life.  Even if your life was lived perfectly as a result of all the perfect advice you received, you would have been robbed of having experienced the process of having lived.  You’d have won the footrace via a jackass-drawn carriage. 

Furthermore, we are all highly fallible judges of Godly people and priests.  We simply cannot know who is the wolf in sheep’s clothing.  Our Lord Himself told us to beware of such prelates.  St. Paul told us not follow angles of light.  It is not without reason that the devil is called the Great Deceiver and the Father of Lies.  We are easily fooled by the apparent goodness and godliness of bastards.

Locke wrote: “I think God is happy when we submit to someone else.”

I think God groans when we submit to someone else.  I think He says to Himself, why did I waste a soul and a brain and all that free will on that hunk of clay.  99.9999% of creation is composed of matter that simply submits to the laws of physics.  You are not supposed to behave that way.  You have been designed with an innate capacity to decide what is the good not be submit to what someone else tells you is the good. – Albert Cipriani
Reply
#23
I guess I'm confused because as Catholics we have to submit to the doctrines of the Church, which were set forth by the Holy Spirit through men.  Why is that submission good and to submit to the non-dogmatic teachings of priests not OK?  When I make a decision to obey my priest I do so with some thought.  It's not like I just blindly follow them.  There is some small portion that makes me do the more holy thing and when I do that, I think that is the part that God smiles at.  He likes us to act in faith.
Reply
#24
(02-19-2010, 09:43 PM)Locke Wrote: I guess I'm confused because as Catholics we have to submit to the doctrines of the Church, which were set forth by the Holy Spirit through men.  Why is that submission good and to submit to the non-dogmatic teachings of priests not OK?

“Submit” is a fairly accurate translation of the “Islam.”  That heresy in the form of a religion got it’s converts through the sword.  Ergo, I prefer not to think that Catholics “submit” to Catholic Church doctrines.  I prefer to think we “obey” Church doctrine. 

“Obedience” is a virtue.  “Submission” is another word for servile obedience, which is a sin.  That is, there is no virtue in submitting to the AUTHORITY of our superiors because they are our superiors.  Rather, there is virtue in submitting to the RATIONALLY authoritative doctrines of our superiors because those doctrines are from God and especially because those doctrines are not to our liking.

How else can we obey God but by disobeying our own preferences?  The prerequisite for practicing the virtue of obedience is a preference to disobey.  The Church, then, can be seen as a mechanism set up by God to provide us with a means of proving our obedience to Him through His Church by choosing His ways over our ways.  This does not require us to submit to a higher power, but to mortify our week selves .

Locke wrote: “When I make a decision to obey my priest I do so with some thought.  It's not like I just blindly follow them.”

I should hope not.  Your thoughtful acceptance of what a priest tells you to do is no different than your thoughtful acceptance of what someone on this board says.  Priests have no charism of infallibility or even teaching authority.  Just look around at the bedlam they spread.

Locke wrote: “There is some small portion that makes me do the more holy thing and when I do that, I think that is the part that God smiles at.  He likes us to act in faith.”

Here is where we disagree.  You doing what a priest tells you to do is no exercise of your faith, nor necessarily a holy act.  You doing what a priest says is only as good or bad an action as the priest.  A bad priest will advise you badly.  A good priest will advise you well.  Why put your faith in the advise of any priest when you know as well as I that you cannot know if said priest is a good or bad one.  None of us know who among us is good or evil.  So let’s not trust each other’s word, but test each other’s word against The Word and against our God-given rational endowments. 

If God is, He is by definition good.  Good, by definition, is rational.  Rational is knowable by our minds and does not require trust or faith.  Ergo, take the advice of your supposedly good priest and run it through the sieve of your cerebral cortex.  If it passes rational muster, obey the truth of what he says, not him.  Sincerely, Albert Cipriani
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)