The SSPX Talks With Rome Are Not a Failure
#51
(07-27-2011, 04:30 PM)ggreg Wrote: Right, so were the 100s of millions of Catholics who lost their faith since the 1960s (including my entire school year of 180 pupils who have ALL lapsed) in the true Church or the false facsimile one?  Because as far as I can tell they went along to the same building, went to the same mass and received the same sacraments from the same priests and vessels as the Catholics who remained practising.  They were also taught the same new ideas that contradicted the old ideas.

I did not misrepresent your point.  Your point is a circular argument.  The world cannot be round because it is flat.  If you say it is round or claim that you sailed to the west and circumnavigated a globe, then you are in error because it is flat.  God told us so.

Or, the earth is in the centre of the solar system and does not move.  It says this in the Bible and the Church judges the Bible and the Church cannot err and therefore if you claim the earth orbits the Sun you are wrong, because the Church cannot be wrong,

Fast forward several hundred years and the Head of the Church is apologising for the Church being wrong.  But he is in error to do this and the Church is still error free.

All a bit to convenient for me I am afraid.

Just as a curiosity, what faith do you claim? Because if you claim to be Catholic, then your answer lies in a Catechism, and is little different from what most people have shared here. Our are you a protestant or some other creed?
Reply
#52
"As the Divinely appointed teacher of revealed truth, the Church is infallible. This gift of inerrancy is guaranteed to it by the words of Christ, in which He promised that His Spirit would abide with it forever to guide it unto all truth (John 14:16; 16:13). It is implied also in other passages of Scripture, and asserted by the unanimous testimony of the Fathers."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
Reply
#53
When you've made more than 31 posts I'll tell you.  Until then read my several thousand and make up your own mind.

But I feel absolutely sure of one thing.  I'll never suspend by honest rational judgement to believe in something that in light of that honest rational judgement I judge to be false or contradictory.

Which is why I am a traditionalist.
Reply
#54
(07-27-2011, 04:29 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote:
(07-27-2011, 04:20 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(07-27-2011, 04:18 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote:
(07-27-2011, 04:15 PM)ggreg Wrote:
(07-27-2011, 04:01 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote:
(07-27-2011, 03:51 PM)ggreg Wrote: How could one judge the Church to be in error, if objectively that was so?

If one could not ever have the authority to judge, then how could the Church ever be proven to be in error?

That's just it - one cannot ever judge the Church to be in error objectively, because the Church cannot error.

So how is it different than a cult then, where the cult leader says I am God even though the building is burning and your children are on fire?

Non Catholics must laugh at this sort of statement in light of the abuse scandals of the last few years.

If there is ever a position where "one cannot ever judge", even when prima facie evidence is slapping you in the face, then human reason is useless.  Nobody here can accuse a cult member of foolishness when ultimately they would suspend their reason for the sake of their faith.  The cult member is convinced that the cult leader is god.

You misinterpreted my point. If the building is burning down around you and children are screaming, then you can't be in the true Church. Make that judgement by all means. Just know that you are not judging the true Church - you are judging a facsimile of her.

Oh--  a Sede...ok, never mind.

Pretty quick to through labels around aren't you. You know jack about me, and clearly jump to conclusions (not for the first time).

You are in denial. What's your answer to ggreg, O historically and doctrinally informed and omnipotent one?

It saves time.  Your train of argument is sedevacantist, as soon as you made that point about the building being on fire then you need to get out, it was easy to jump to that conclusion, because I've heard that rhetoric before.
Reply
#55
(07-27-2011, 04:37 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote: "As the Divinely appointed teacher of revealed truth, the Church is infallible. This gift of inerrancy is guaranteed to it by the words of Christ, in which He promised that His Spirit would abide with it forever to guide it unto all truth (John 14:16; 16:13). It is implied also in other passages of Scripture, and asserted by the unanimous testimony of the Fathers."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

But.....it appears to me that is has erred.  Look around you.  Observe the "catholic" world and compare it to the faith of your fathers.  Chalk and Cheese.
Reply
#56
(07-27-2011, 04:40 PM)ggreg Wrote:
(07-27-2011, 04:37 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote: "As the Divinely appointed teacher of revealed truth, the Church is infallible. This gift of inerrancy is guaranteed to it by the words of Christ, in which He promised that His Spirit would abide with it forever to guide it unto all truth (John 14:16; 16:13). It is implied also in other passages of Scripture, and asserted by the unanimous testimony of the Fathers."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

But.....it appears to me that is has erred.  Look around you.  Observe the "catholic" world and compare it to the faith of your fathers.  Chalk and Cheese.

That's his point, I guess.

But we've had masses of non-practicing, semi-believing Catholics before.
Reply
#57
(07-27-2011, 04:41 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(07-27-2011, 04:40 PM)ggreg Wrote:
(07-27-2011, 04:37 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote: "As the Divinely appointed teacher of revealed truth, the Church is infallible. This gift of inerrancy is guaranteed to it by the words of Christ, in which He promised that His Spirit would abide with it forever to guide it unto all truth (John 14:16; 16:13). It is implied also in other passages of Scripture, and asserted by the unanimous testimony of the Fathers."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

But.....it appears to me that is has erred.  Look around you.  Observe the "catholic" world and compare it to the faith of your fathers.  Chalk and Cheese.

That's his point, I guess.

But we've had masses of non-practicing, semi-believing Catholics before.

Wow, who are you. You are the most self-approving individual I have had the misfortune of meeting. Everything you say is by your own word, and when you have made a mistake, you jump to denial.

I was just fighting for the teaching of the Church, which I quoted and you criticized.

Well, I'll admit when I make a mistake - I said interdict above - I meant formal suspension. "On the other hand, acts of jurisdiction become null and void after a suspended cleric has been denounced by name, because the Church has power to deprive one totally of jurisdiction."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14345b.htm

And to quote you: doctrine much?
Reply
#58
And my point is that it is meaningless to say that a construct is infallible.   Because it is like trying to nail down Jello.

We complain that the modernists don't commit to any useful language or that B16 talks out of both sides of his mouth, and, yet, we say that this intangible invisible construct called "The Church" cannot err.

Fine.  But when all we can see, touch, hear and smell does err (and bugger adolescent boys with the cover-up of the Pope for 20 years) then how useful or beneficial is it that this construct is still in perfect harmony with the Creator of all things  Jesus left us an unerring Church we cannot usefully interact with.

Can I as a creature made of atoms, go and find a respectful and dignified sacrifice of the mass that the construct once told me was declared and define as the mass of all ages?  No, because just about every Churchman won't say it. The construct cannot say the mass for me.  Men have to do that and most of them don't have the same faith as me or my grandpa or his grandpa before him.

Can the construct teach my children their faith?  No, erring humans need to do that too.

I go back to my police and teachers example.  When something that legitimately governs humans, especially something claiming indefectability, does not do the prime thing it is supposed to do, then it ceases to have legitimacy.  I don't see why just because policemen and teacher only operate in the temporal and the Church operates in the temporal and spiritual that they have a get-out-of-jail-free card and don't need to follow their primary purpose.

If you want to claim that the invisible intangible mysterious part of the Church still has it then there is no way anyone could prove otherwise because you cannot show them what defines this mysterious jello blob.  I'm not saying it hasn't.  Just that there is no way to know.

Using reason and rationality it would appear to me that to believe in something purely because of faith when it contradicted reason, was unreasoned.  And once I go down that rabbit hole I could end up happy in a mental asylum believing I was the Queen of Sheeba.
Reply
#59
(07-27-2011, 04:38 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: It saves time.  Your train of argument is sedevacantist, as soon as you made that point about the building being on fire then you need to get out, it was easy to jump to that conclusion, because I've heard that rhetoric before.

The burning building analogy was ggreg's if you care to look back in the thread. I simply alluded to something Archbishop Lefebvre said reflecting on the indefectibility of the Church on many occasions.
Reply
#60
(07-27-2011, 05:04 PM)ggreg Wrote: And my point is that it is meaningless to say that a construct is infallible.   Because it is like trying to nail down Jello.

We complain that the modernists don't commit to any useful language or that B16 talks out of both sides of his mouth, and, yet, we say that this intangible invisible construct called "The Church" cannot err.

Fine.  But when all we can see, touch, hear and smell does err (and bugger adolescent boys with the cover-up of the Pope for 20 years) then how useful or beneficial is it that this construct is still in perfect harmony with the Creator of all things  Jesus left us an unerring Church we cannot usefully interact with.

Can I as a creature made of atoms, go and find a respectful and dignified sacrifice of the mass that the construct once told me was declared and define as the mass of all ages?  No, because just about every Churchman won't say it. The construct cannot say the mass for me.  Men have to do that and most of them don't have the same faith as me or my grandpa or his grandpa before him.

Can the construct teach my children their faith?  No, erring humans need to do that too.

I go back to my police and teachers example.  When something that legitimately governs humans, especially something claiming indefectability, does not do the prime thing it is supposed to do, then it ceases to have legitimacy.  I don't see why just because policemen and teacher only operate in the temporal and the Church operates in the temporal and spiritual that they have a get-out-of-jail-free card and don't need to follow their primary purpose.

If you want to claim that the invisible intangible mysterious part of the Church still has it then there is no way anyone could prove otherwise because you cannot show them what defines this mysterious jello blob.  I'm not saying it hasn't.  Just that there is no way to know.

Using reason and rationality it would appear to me that to believe in something purely because of faith when it contradicted reason, was unreasoned.  And once I go down that rabbit hole I could end up happy in a mental asylum believing I was the Queen of Sheeba.

So you think there is a problem with the belief that the Church is Infallible?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)