The SSPX Talks With Rome Are Not a Failure
#61
(07-27-2011, 04:48 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote:
(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?

No, you're insisting on false obedience, and you conveniently ignored the counterexample I provided when I described St. Athanasius.
Reply
#62
(07-27-2011, 05:09 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote:
(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?

He's justified by what seems reasonable to him, that's all.  The Church can't be infallible because he finds it doesn't live up to its own criteria of infallibility.

It's more convenient if you have a sufficiently, conveniently high enough bar for infallibility, then you're off the hook.
Reply
#63
Augustine Baker is close, but no banana.

My point is simply this.  You throw around the term "the Church" but you actually mean two different things.

There is the visible Church of hierarchy which we are suppose to be obedient to because it is "the Church", but when it errs and contradicts wholesale what it taught for 1000 years before then it isn't "the Church", any more just a lot of naughty bishops and "the Church" is the mysterious Schrodinger's Cat Church in the invisible intangible box which we cannot say is in error because we cannot ever know exactly where it is or what it looks, smells or tastes like.  Clearly if something has neither form no substance then you can accuse it of error but it means nothing.

This Schrodinger's Cat Church makes about as much rational sense to me as Quantum Mechanics or the evolution of one species into an entirely different species which is zero sense.  It rankles with my rational mind and it seems as stupid to ignore that rational, reasoning mind as it does to jump out of my life raft mid-ocean because I think voices are telling me that a floating restaurant is passing by.  They are not.  And if I leave the life raft of my sanity I will surely drown.
Reply
#64
Your counter example is mute. It has never been proved that Athanasius was excommunicated as the letters are very commonly thought to be forgeries; if not forgeries, at the very least written under duress.

Even if the event were true as you allege, nobody commenting on the event has said that Pope Liberius would not have had that authority. Your reference to a event shrouded in debate and mystery does not undermine the fact that the Church claims authority and jurisdiction to suspend prelates for defect in faith or for disobedience. I kindly referenced a source that alluded to that teaching.

The true Church has always claimed the authority to rule and act as I have referenced. It is a historical fact that Archbishop Lefebvre received a notice that he was suspended "A Divinis". Canon Law was compiled with all historical contexts in mind, and still reserved the rights of suspension to the Roman Pontiff.

"In consequence the Sovereign Pontiff Paul VI, on 22 July 1976, in conformity with [c*.] 2227, in virtue of which the penalties that can be applied to a bishop are expressly reserved to him, has inflicted on you suspension a divinis provided for in [c*.] 2279, §2, 2o, and has ordered that it take immediate effect."
Reply
#65
(07-27-2011, 05:34 PM)ggreg Wrote: Augustine Baker is close, but no banana.

My point is simply this.  You throw around the term "the Church" but you actually mean two different things.

There is the visible Church of hierarchy which we are suppose to be obedient to because it is "the Church", but when it errs and contradicts wholesale what it taught for 1000 years before then it isn't "the Church", any more just a lot of naughty bishops and "the Church" is the mysterious Schrodinger's Cat Church in the invisible intangible box which we cannot say is error because we cannot ever know exactly where it is or what it looks, smells or tastes like.

This makes about as much rational sense to me as Quantum Mechanics or the evolution of one species into an entirely different species which is zero sense.  It rankles with my rational mind and it seems as stupid to ignore that rational, reasoning mind as it does to jump out of my life raft mid-ocean because I think voices are telling me that a floating restaurant is passing by.  They are not.  And if I leave the life raft of my sanity I will surely drown.

We are rational beings as you say. By Divine revelation we have been given Marks by which we know the Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. It is indefectible and infallible or there is no religion at all. When we ask protestants to join the Church, we show these Marks, and ask them to decide for themselves what entity posses these Marks. We them tell them that by Divine revelation, they must belong to this entity, called the Catholic Church. We are expected, as are our protestant and non-Catholic friends, to use our great gift of intellect to discern by God's guidelines.
Reply
#66
If I were an atheist, I would be expected to rationalize and come to the acknowledgement that God exists. That’s not enough, because Muslims believe in a god. If I were a Jew, with very comprehensive collection of Revelation, belief, and system of worship, I would still be expected to rationalize and come to the Truth of Catholicism because of the historical fact of OT fulfillment. If I were a protestant, I would be expected to rationalize and see the truth of consistent, Catholic teaching and the Marks of the True Church.

As an individual (whatever creed), if I see my building burning around me and resembling a cult (to reference ggreg above), then I would be expected to rationalize, to realize that that building cannot be the True Church as it does not have the Marks of the True Church.

If we cannot be expected to rationalize (or are told not to rationalize), then our purpose here on earth as explained in the Catechism is moot. We cannot expect converts from Hinduism, Islam, Jews, or any other creed; if we cannot rationalize using the tools from Divine revelation, then we cannot expect any more from them. We cannot be expected to know, love, and serve only God, because we cannot be expected to “know” using our rational intellect.

And the Church started with twelve bishops and a couple hundred faithful. I don’t think we are down to that yet, so the Church has to be a little easier to find than Schrödinger’s Cat. My opinion only of course.
Reply
#67
Where in the Gospels does it mention the Divinely Revealed Four Marks?  I am not saying it doesn't say it, I just don't remember where.

You say it is revealed by Divine Revelation but as far as I know, and I might be wrong, the Church first mentioned the four marks idea long after the last apostle was dead.

So how would a Protestant believe the Marks were given by Divine Revelation?
Reply
#68
(07-27-2011, 06:12 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote: If I were an atheist, I would be expected to rationalize and come to the acknowledgement that God exists. That’s not enough, because Muslims believe in a god. If I were a Jew, with very comprehensive collection of Revelation, belief, and system of worship, I would still be expected to rationalize and come to the Truth of Catholicism because of the historical fact of OT fulfillment. If I were a protestant, I would be expected to rationalize and see the truth of consistent, Catholic teaching and the Marks of the True Church.

As an individual (whatever creed), if I see my building burning around me and resembling a cult (to reference ggreg above), then I would be expected to rationalize, to realize that that building cannot be the True Church as it does not have the Marks of the True Church.

If we cannot be expected to rationalize (or are told not to rationalize), then our purpose here on earth as explained in the Catechism is moot. We cannot expect converts from Hinduism, Islam, Jews, or any other creed; if we cannot rationalize using the tools from Divine revelation, then we cannot expect any more from them. We cannot be expected to know, love, and serve only God, because we cannot be expected to “know” using our rational intellect.

And the Church started with twelve bishops and a couple hundred faithful. I don’t think we are down to that yet, so the Church has to be a little easier to find than Schrödinger’s Cat. My opinion only of course.

Twelve Bishops might be pushing it.  I know of just four who exclusively say the old mass.  And technically speaking they are excommunicated from the Schrodinger's Cat Church.
Reply
#69
(07-27-2011, 06:27 PM)ggreg Wrote: Twelve Bishops might be pushing it.  I know of just four who exclusively say the old mass.  And technically speaking they are excommunicated from the Schrodinger's Cat Church.

Well, I travel the world operating industrial equipment. I know of the four with the SSPX, at least three with other societies in Mexico, there are six Eastern Rite bishops in the Ukraine that I am familiar with, and I thought there were nine or so in this country. Of course they are all SSPX, sede vacante, or sede privationists, which makes a difference to a lot of people. They've all claimed the same amount of supplied jurisdiction... I've been around the block a long time with all of them, and it is my opinion that they are all equal (although I am sure many will disagree). I haven't traveled much in Asia or Africa, so I don't know about those continents.
Reply
#70
How many bishops are there in the organisation currently known as the Catholic Church?

Ukraine, Mexico?  There goes one of the marks, Universal or Catholic.

One?  Are these bishops even talking to each other to the best of your knowledge?

Apostolic and Holy I'll grant you.  But that is two marks.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)