SSPX Statement
#41
(07-21-2012, 01:59 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote:
(07-21-2012, 01:52 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-20-2012, 10:18 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(07-20-2012, 07:05 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: A salvific baptism of desire has not been declared de fide.  Fr. Feeney and his students have always said they would submit to any de fide teachings without hesitation.

We are not only obliged to hold de fide pronouncements of the extraordinary magisterium. We must submit to the infallible ordinary and universal magisterium as well.

Please site your source  - otherwise it is no more than only your opinion.

Thanks all over the place.

Modern Catholic Dictionary Wrote:DE FIDE. A term meaning "of faith," used to identify those doctrines of the Church which are infallibly true. Their infallible certitude derives ultimately from divine revelation, but proximately from the fact that they have either been solemnly defined by the Church's magisterium or have been taught by her ordinary universal teaching authority as binding on the consciences of all the faithful.

The de fide teachings cannot contradict one another, of course, and none of them do.

The NO is taught by the UOM - explain.
Reply
#42
(07-21-2012, 02:09 PM)Stubborn Wrote: The NO is taught by the UOM - explain.

That's exactly right.  Since it contradicts de fide statements, we're not obliged to accept it.  Maybe we can all agree on that now.
Reply
#43
(07-21-2012, 01:52 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Please site your source  - otherwise it is no more than only your opinion.

Thanks all over the place.

Sure. Here's one:
Vatican I, Session 3 Wrote:Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

And another:
Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, December 21, 1863 Dz 1683-4 Wrote:While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.

But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

Finally:
Pope Pius IX, Condemned Proposition (Syllabus of Modern Errors, n. 22; 8 December 1864: Dz. 1722) Wrote:The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of faith
Reply
#44
(07-21-2012, 02:13 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote:
(07-21-2012, 02:09 PM)Stubborn Wrote: The NO is taught by the UOM - explain.

That's exactly right.  Since it contradicts de fide statements, we're not obliged to accept it.  Maybe we can all agree on that now.

I would disagree and say that, since the Church cannot give error, the Novus Ordo Missae etc. was not given by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. Anyone familiar with me knows my argument as to the how and the why.
Reply
#45
(07-21-2012, 02:13 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote:
(07-21-2012, 02:09 PM)Stubborn Wrote: The NO is taught by the UOM - explain.

That's exactly right.  Since it contradicts de fide statements, we're not obliged to accept it.  Maybe we can all agree on that now.

Actually, that is not the case entirely (modernists never do anything "entirely").

There are specific requirements spelled out which if not met, are not only fallible, they are prone to error. The first requirement is the UOM must teach what has been the constant and universal consent of the fathers..........which the NO fails at right out of the gate.

Try to tell a NO supporter though and you become schismatic, heretical, an infidel and even a protestant.

Reply
#46
(07-21-2012, 02:18 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(07-21-2012, 01:52 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Please site your source  - otherwise it is no more than only your opinion.

Thanks all over the place.

Sure. Here's one:
Vatican I, Session 3 Wrote:Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

And another:
Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, December 21, 1863 Dz 1683-4 Wrote:While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.

But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

Finally:
Pope Pius IX, Condemned Proposition (Syllabus of Modern Errors, n. 22; 8 December 1864: Dz. 1722) Wrote:The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of faith

Read Tuas Libenter's requirements for de fide teachings - let me know your conclusion once you realize UOM teach de fide only when basic requirements are met.
Reply
#47
(07-21-2012, 02:20 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(07-21-2012, 02:13 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote:
(07-21-2012, 02:09 PM)Stubborn Wrote: The NO is taught by the UOM - explain.

That's exactly right.  Since it contradicts de fide statements, we're not obliged to accept it.  Maybe we can all agree on that now.

I would disagree and say that, since the Church cannot give error, the Novus Ordo Missae etc. was not given by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. Anyone familiar with me knows my argument as to the how and the why.

But you are wrong.

I know your reasons but the reality is, the UOM promulgated error. Read Tuas Libenter and I think that you will see how and why.
Reply
#48
(07-21-2012, 02:24 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Read Tuas Libenter's requirements for de fide teachings - let me know your conclusion once you realize UOM teach de fide only when basic requirements are met.

The common and constant consent of theologians (when they say something is de fide or theol. cert.).
(07-21-2012, 02:26 PM)Stubborn Wrote: But you are wrong.

I know your reasons but the reality is, the UOM promulgated error. Read Tuas Libenter and I think that you will see how and why.

This does not make sense because it would mean that just because clerics in episcopal and priestly attire say something is true, it becomes the truth. If that were the case, we would all be Arians, or modernists. A heretic ceases to be a Catholic, let alone a theologian. Even if they diverted from the Faith on one minute point:
[quote='Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, no.  9, June 29, 1896']
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative magisterium
Reply
#49
(07-21-2012, 02:40 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(07-21-2012, 02:24 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Read Tuas Libenter's requirements for de fide teachings - let me know your conclusion once you realize UOM teach de fide only when basic requirements are met.

The common and constant consent of theologians (when they say something is de fide or theol. cert.).
(07-21-2012, 02:26 PM)Stubborn Wrote: But you are wrong.

I know your reasons but the reality is, the UOM promulgated error. Read Tuas Libenter and I think that you will see how and why.

This does not make sense because it would mean that just because clerics in episcopal and priestly attire say something is true, it becomes the truth. If that were the case, we would all be Arians, or modernists. A heretic ceases to be a Catholic, let alone a theologian. Even if they diverted from the Faith on one minute point:
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, no.  9, June 29, 1896 Wrote:The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative magisterium

The NO is not the  unanimous teaching of the Fathers, indeed, "the fathers" condemned the evil thing. Nor does the NO enjoy  common and constant consent of theologians nor is that even possible because it is, after all, NEW, the "New Order".   
Reply
#50
(07-21-2012, 02:46 PM)Stubborn Wrote: The NO is not the  unanimous teaching of the Fathers, indeed, "the fathers" condemned the evil thing. Nor does the NO enjoy  common and constant consent of theologians nor is that even possible because it is, after all, NEW, the "New Order".   

Exactly. I agree. It does not enjoy the constant and common consent of all Catholic theologians.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)