CDF rejects SSPX second response
(02-09-2012, 04:22 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-09-2012, 10:07 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: TrentCath,

You have already conceded that heretics are cut off from the Church by divine and not ecclesiastical law. The new code of Canon law can't "abrogate" divine law. A man who publicly professes heresy cannot hold authority and jurisdiction in the body to which he manifestly no longer belongs to.

You are the one arguing that professing the Catholic faith does not really matter in order to have authority and jurisdiction in the Church which is absurd!

Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice Wrote:Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15): "Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

That is an oversimplification of my view but again I have not seen any evidence whatsoever that justifies disobeying bishops and further committing the sin of presumption by believing them to be heretics as they have professed what we believe is a heresy.

It was a layman who first called out the heresy of Nestorius. Profession is not subjective. 
Quote: I have justified my view with copious quotes and references to canon law,

Lists of quotes don't have much weight if they are being misapplied. What you provided made several errors that I pointed out. Whoever wrote the article seems to have considered a few canons only in coming to a conclusion in  much the same way that Protestants use only a few Scripture passages to justify their actions. The study of canon law is comprehensive and requires that all of it--including the various distinctions made therein--be considered simultaneously in order to know what it means. Canon 2314 doesn't specifically treat of public heresy, but 188.4 does (and 192.1 applies it to the vacation of an ecclesiastical office by the law itself).

You tried to redefine what abandoning the Faith means, but you did not support your view. Abandoning the Faith can be effected many ways, two of which include heresy and apostasy per divine law. You cannot abrogate that with the 1983 Code or by saying that one has to announce that he's abandoning the Faith. The Church is not simply a man-made structure. The unity of the Catholic Church is supernaturally bound by divine law, which is effected even before we know it, as even the Code of Canon Law points out. Islam, on the contrary, is a religion that is legally bound by a mere unity of government. It takes time for the law to catch up to someone, but with Catholicism it is instant. As I pointed out, if this were not so, the unity of the Church would be merely theoretical, but not actual. Unity of Faith is maintained by a unity of profession, which is one of the two constituents that make up the visibility of the Church: formal and material visibility. If heretical prelates can publicly profess heresy without immediate consequence, then there is no actual unity of profession, which destroys what is known as formal visibility, and there is no real unity of Faith, either. These are divine attributes of the Church that can't be dispensed with by mere disciplinary law, regardless of what the 1983 Code says. It could only (theoretically) have the power to abrogate ecclesiastical laws. It could not have the power to abrogate divine law, which is found in the 1917 Code of Canon law.


Quote: the opposing view on the other hand has been characterised by a misunderstanding of canonical terms and arguments ab adsurdam as well as an over reliance on a particular view of particular theologians rather than the oppossing views of other theologians of great weight.

I advise you to re-read the discussion. The quotes you brought to the table use canons don't pertain to public and manifest heresy, treat of minor excommunication as opposed to major excommunication, and overlook the divine law that is present among many of the canons of the 1917 Code.
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 INPEFESS - 02-09-2012, 08:04 PM
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)