CDF rejects SSPX second response
(02-09-2012, 01:38 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(02-08-2012, 04:23 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(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.

I have demonstrated that their arguments are false. They are citing laws that are (1) merely ecclesiastical in nature, (2) pertain to material/formal heresy, and/or (3) concern minor excommunication. This doesn't refute the principles of divine law that secure the unity of the Church. Again, who's more right: the SSPX or the pope? If I used your logic, I'd go with the pope. You seem to be stuck in a contradiction here.

Quote:
(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.

The Ordinary Magisterium teaches that those who publicly defect from the faith lose membership in the Church. I could post countless teachings reiterating the Church's teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, but I think you already know what the Church teaches here. If this were not true, then unity of the Church would be a sham. The unity of the Church involves a unity of belief, which consists of a unity of profession (Mystici Corporis Christi). Authority in the Church comes from faith. If there is no faith, there is no authority. If you want to argue that those outside the Church can somehow legitimately command those inside with the power of God, then I think the burden is on you to show how that is possible and where it has been taught that it is possible.

Quote: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.

Please cite your sources. Public abandonment of the faith is effected by heresy and apostasy. If you don't think one abandons the faith by publicly apostatizing or by publicly professing heresy, then please show where the Church teaches that one doesn't abandon the faith by heresy and apostasy.

You have demonstrated nothing merely repeated your argument ad absurdam and expected people to ignore your lack of evidence.

There is no point in dealing with your arguments as you are conflating issues:
I) loss of membership in the church,
ii) loss of office and jurisdiction

You also don't understand the canonical meanings of heresy, public, notorious and so forth. You continue to ignore the correct definitions and thus your argument is fundamentally flawed.

As far as I am concerned I have achieved what I set out to do namely to prove we cannot ignore bishops because we believe them to have professed heresy, if this is to be continued it will have to move to the cornfield.
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 Tapatio - 02-09-2012, 03:41 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by TrentCath - 02-09-2012, 05:17 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)