CDF rejects SSPX second response
(02-08-2012, 03:04 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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.

The argument requires me to accept that you understand the source text better then the theologian who did the study and those who agree with him or that it was done in bad faith, neither are plausible. It is not an ad hominem authority, but rather a fact of probability, what is more likely that you are wrong or that those who studied the source texts, did the comparative works and all those that agree with him are wrong? It is more likely that you are wrong.


(02-08-2012, 03:04 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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.

You have misunderstood what I have said, the issue is a matter of theological opinion not fact, I am not saying 'Well opinions differ so it must be a matter of opinion' I am stating that:
i) The Church has not definitively pronounced one way or the other, and
ii)as a result there is a range of opinions of which yours is one

If you would like to prove your assertion that it is not in fact a matter of opinion but in fact de fide feel free to do so.

(02-08-2012, 03:04 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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:
[quote='Canon 188.4']
“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.

There is a problem here. 'Publicly abandoning the faith' and 'heresy' are not equivalent, a bishop standing up and declaring 'I repudiate the faith and embrace communism/lutheranism/islam etc...' is different from a bishop manifesting theologically erroneous or heretical propositions. The sections you have cited do not apply to the potential case at hand.

(02-08-2012, 03:04 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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.

I think we both know the difference between the two, and no the Pope did not issue a warning, a canonical warning would be 'You are breach of Canon...'
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 TrentCath - 02-08-2012, 04:23 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)