CDF rejects SSPX second response
(02-07-2012, 07:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Firstly I will take the view of someone who conducted a thorough study on the matter over a layman on a forum.

This is akin the argument that goes, "I will take the opinion of the pope on this matter over the opinion of some layman on a forum." You wouldn't accept that argument from JayneK, so I don't accept it from you. What the Church teaches is quite clear. Citing irrelevant canons that fail to point out the distinction between major and minor excommunication is not the mark of someone who "conducted a thorough study on the matter." Objectivity requires that you examine the argument itself, not the perceived credentials of the one making it.
Quote: It is clear as the study shows that opinions differ, the church has not definitively pronounced one way or the other, nor is the theological opinion even 'certain', it is merely 'probable' or 'common' teaching.

She has actually declared it as certain. You have provided false objections that obfuscate what the Church teaches because they fail to recognize important distinctions in the law. That doesn't mean that the Church hasn't definitively pronounced one way or the other; it means that not everyone chooses to acknowledge the distinctions in the Church's law, for one reason or another. People disagree about whether the Novus Ordo's errors can be accepted or not. But you wouldn't conclude that because there are varying opinions on the matter, it is only one's opinion that they are not errors. The Church has defined what She has defined. That is not a matter of opinion, regardless of whether we're talking about the Church's law or the Novus Ordo's errors.

Quote:Secondly something that occurs because of the law itself can be called 'ex lege' or 'from the law', you are arguing that this means upon heresy the law deprives them of their office ipso facto because of that heresy. This is wrong, the conditions laid down by the law must be met namely obstinancy and warning.

Upon public, notorious, or manifest heresy, yes. You are overlooking the distinctions made in the law. It means that he has been excluded by divine law. You are trying to limit the divine law to ecclesiastical law mentioned in Canon 2314, which doesn't concern heresy that is public, notorious, or manifest. Canon 188.4, however, does:
Canon 188.4 Wrote:“There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publicly abandoned the faith.”

Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Quote:A layman informing a superior authority is not properly speaking a warning, it is a rebuke, only a superior can properly speaking give a warning, therefore bishops would be required to give a warning to meet the conditions for an ex lege ipso facto deprivation of office for priests and the holy see for bishops. The case you make therefore fails.

Please see above concerning the distinctions between (1) material/formal heresy and (2) private/public heresy. Regardless, in the cases I mentioned, it was the pope himself issuing the warnings, not a layperson.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-01-2012, 09:21 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Aragon - 02-02-2012, 05:48 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Josué - 02-03-2012, 01:24 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 01:11 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 01:32 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 03:46 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 04:40 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-03-2012, 05:12 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by FHM310 - 02-03-2012, 05:12 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Nic - 02-03-2012, 05:18 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 05:32 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 06:38 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-03-2012, 07:45 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 07:53 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 07:57 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 08:12 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 08:16 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-03-2012, 09:48 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Justin - 02-03-2012, 09:58 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 10:13 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 10:47 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-03-2012, 11:31 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 12:16 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 12:34 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 12:39 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Aragon - 02-04-2012, 12:40 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-04-2012, 12:50 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 12:51 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 01:02 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Aragon - 02-04-2012, 01:14 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-04-2012, 09:33 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 09:40 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 12:32 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Meg - 02-04-2012, 01:00 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Meg - 02-04-2012, 01:30 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 01:41 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 01:53 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Graham - 02-04-2012, 02:22 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Justin - 02-04-2012, 02:33 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 03:23 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 04:56 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 05:40 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 06:46 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 07:37 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 08:54 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-05-2012, 10:08 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-05-2012, 03:14 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Silouan - 02-05-2012, 05:41 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-05-2012, 05:57 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-05-2012, 06:19 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Silouan - 02-05-2012, 11:11 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-06-2012, 12:13 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-06-2012, 02:53 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-06-2012, 03:07 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-06-2012, 09:47 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Doce Me - 02-06-2012, 11:55 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-07-2012, 12:49 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-07-2012, 11:20 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by INPEFESS - 02-08-2012, 03:04 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-09-2012, 03:41 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-12-2012, 02:58 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-12-2012, 07:39 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-12-2012, 11:06 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-13-2012, 08:30 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-16-2012, 03:24 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-16-2012, 04:18 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)