New Sungenis vs Dimond debate
#38
NO.

I tell others they are obligated to hold to the opinions of theologians who are not modernist heretics.

That discounts nearly every theologian after 1964...

I STRIVe for consistency. And this is it:

The Council proclaimed heresy. The theologians who were AT the council therefore set forth heretical teaching. The theologians so-called, after the council promulgated the councils heretical teaching. They are therefore neither to be believed or acknowledged.

Oh, so now I am picking and choosing? DARN STRAIGHT!!! Choosing orthodoxy over heresy is the obligation of EVERY catholic. So yes, we are to hold to the unanimous consent of the Churches theologians. But HERETICAL THEOLOGIANS who put forth HERETICAL DOCTRINE (Fr. RAHNER) are NOT part of the unanimous voice of theologians, nor do they represent the mind of the church!

How can I be so sure that one is a heretic? Easy. We have magisterial documents, and we have historical precedent for the way they were applied. Read, and compare. If a theologina, so-called, teaches that dogma develops, he is a heretic. His beliefs were condemned by Pope St. Pius X in "lamentabilis."

Oh, but how do I know he is pertinacious? shouldn't we give him the benefit of the doubt?

NOPE.

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Positing an external violation of the law, malice (dolus) is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”

Guess what? Heretical writers are ASSUMED to be malicious. i.e. GUILTY until proven innocent.

But some may also contend, "Well, so much of what this pope or that theologian says is vague, but it can be interpreted according to tradition."

NOPE.

Pope Pius VI, in his Papal Bull, "Auctorem Fidei"

"Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794:  

“[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner [Like SUSBSITS IN -Gregory I] . Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.  This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used.  For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it."

And just to establish that Paul VI acted against the Church's magisterial teaching in his construction of the Novus Ordo Mass:

Pope Pius VI condemned the idea that “ ‘recalling it (the liturgy) to greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language or by uttering it in a loud voice’ as if the present order of the liturgy received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated” as “rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favourable to the charges of heretics”. — Auctorem Fidei [33].

"I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.
"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, like Mary Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, "Where have they taken Him?" (emphasis added)
... Pope Pius XII
Quoted in the book Pius XII Devant L'Histoire, pp. 52-53 (by Msgr. Georges Roche)
Reply


Messages In This Thread
New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by faith3faith - 08-11-2011, 07:54 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Joshua - 08-12-2011, 05:01 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-14-2011, 03:03 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Sigfrid - 08-14-2011, 05:44 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Sigfrid - 08-14-2011, 05:57 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-14-2011, 06:14 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-14-2011, 06:15 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-14-2011, 06:37 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-18-2011, 01:47 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by timoose - 08-18-2011, 09:22 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-19-2011, 10:36 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-19-2011, 02:51 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-19-2011, 08:11 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Windmill - 08-20-2011, 03:23 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-20-2011, 05:48 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by nmoerbeek - 08-22-2011, 12:18 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-22-2011, 01:23 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by nmoerbeek - 08-22-2011, 10:37 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-22-2011, 08:03 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-25-2011, 08:09 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-25-2011, 08:12 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-25-2011, 08:31 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-29-2011, 01:13 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 09-01-2011, 07:11 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 09-04-2011, 02:59 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-04-2011, 03:13 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 09-04-2011, 01:46 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-05-2011, 03:40 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-05-2011, 04:04 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 09-05-2011, 05:21 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-05-2011, 10:42 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 09-06-2011, 12:46 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 09-06-2011, 01:11 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 09-06-2011, 04:19 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 09-07-2011, 04:27 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-07-2011, 06:24 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by thomas7 - 09-07-2011, 02:44 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 09-07-2011, 08:42 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 09-08-2011, 08:25 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-08-2011, 08:33 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)