Declaration on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecratio
(07-03-2013, 01:53 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote: If we want to consult the Angelic Doctor, he also teaches that men, even infidels, are not to be prevented from raising their children as they see fit - almost exactly what Dignitatis Humanae describes.

Perhaps you would care to cite that reference to St. Thomas ... Quod gratis affirmatur, gratis negatur.

Further, Dignitatis Humanae teaches quite a bit more than one point about the education of non-Catholics.

Moreover, I assume you are not suggesting that St. Thomas would suggest that raising children to be sex slaves would be acceptable, even if a parent thinks this a fitting way to raise their children? Hence, I think you're paraphrase of DH and St. Thomas limps.


(07-03-2013, 01:53 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:
Quote:Theses errors concern the Constitution of the Church (Collegiality), Religious Liberty, and Relations with non-Catholics and non-Christians (Ecumenism). The loose, non-theological and ambiguous language used also permit such errors, or even encourage them.
Interesting. Are you saying these three disputes are not questions of dogma?

Not strictly, no. But then I mean dogma stricte dicta (in the proper theological sense), not in the late dicta layman's-term sense.

Since you used the term "formal heresy", I assume you are speaking in theological terms, since that is a very clearly defined theological term. And thus we need to take that term in its proper meaning, which is "a pertinacious denial of a revealed truth which has been clearly defined by the Church and commanded to be held by all believers".

The Society, I propose, would not say that the documents of Vatican II contain statements which pertinaciously contradict doctrine which has been clearly revealed or expressly defined by the Church as an Article of the Faith. Thus, they do not contain "formal heresy".

While the points in question are not denials of de fide defined propositions, the Society would likely say that these are either:
  • denials of doctrine which have not be expressly defined as de fide or denials of doctrine which has not been proposed as an Article of Faith, in which case we would call such denial "proximate to heresy"; or
  • propositions which do not directly contravene dogma, but logically lead to variance with revealed truth, and are thus "theological errors"; or
  • statements which themselves are not erroneous, but are couched in unprecedented and non-theological language, that they can easily lead to variance with revealed truth or indirectly question common theological opinion.

For instance, "Religious Liberty" if taken in the clearly-erroneous American sense (intended by Fr. Murray at Vatican II), is not a direct denial of any Article of Faith, but logically leads to variance with revealed truth. So one would call this a "theological error", not a "heresy".

And as an example of the last, Msgr. Gheradini mentions as well, that the consistent emphasis of the priest as "minister of the Word" while playing down his sacrificial role, while not erroneous, easily leads to a redefinition of the priesthood to exclude the primary and sacrificial aspect of the priest; and as well easily leads to theological error concerning the "priesthood of the faithful". This is what is meant by "ambiguities" or "ambiguous language".

In the case of Religious Liberty, we could thus say that this is an "error" strictly or directly, while in the latter, it would be an "error" loosely or indirectly, because while not itself erroneous, it was intended to lead to error.
Reply
(07-03-2013, 11:17 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The Society, I propose, would not say that the documents of Vatican II contain statements which pertinaciously contradict doctrine which has been clearly revealed or expressly defined by the Church as an Article of the Faith. Thus, they do not contain "formal heresy".

While the points in question are not denials of de fide defined propositions, the Society would likely say that these are either:
  • denials of doctrine which have not be expressly defined as de fide or denials of doctrine which has not been proposed as an Article of Faith, in which case we would call such denial "proximate to heresy"; or
  • propositions which do not directly contravene dogma, but logically lead to variance with revealed truth, and are thus "theological errors"; or
  • statements which themselves are not erroneous, but are couched in unprecedented and non-theological language, that they can easily lead to variance with revealed truth or indirectly question common theological opinion.

For instance, "Religious Liberty" if taken in the clearly-erroneous American sense (intended by Fr. Murray at Vatican II), is not a direct denial of any Article of Faith, but logically leads to variance with revealed truth. So one would call this a "theological error", not a "heresy".

And as an example of the last, Msgr. Gheradini mentions as well, that the consistent emphasis of the priest as "minister of the Word" while playing down his sacrificial role, while not erroneous, easily leads to a redefinition of the priesthood to exclude the primary and sacrificial aspect of the priest; and as well easily leads to theological error concerning the "priesthood of the faithful". This is what is meant by "ambiguities" or "ambiguous language".

In the case of Religious Liberty, we could thus say that this is an "error" strictly or directly, while in the latter, it would be an "error" loosely or indirectly, because while not itself erroneous, it was intended to lead to error.

Without getting into the specific points that are controverted (which would each need their own thread), the problem is we are not dealing with the writings of theologians here so it is not within the SSPX's competency to assign such censures to those doctrines (assuming their ministry was even legitimate).  The fact that these doctrines are taught by an Ecumenical Council gives them the theological note of at least "Catholic doctrine," the denial of which receives the cesure of temerity.  Traditionally, theologians have adjusted the theological note that they assign to doctrines when the Magisterium intervenes, even in a non-definitive way.

This problem flows from the more fundamental problem of the SSPX (which I may have mentioned earlier in the thread). The fundamental problem with the SSPX is they  have begun (at least more explicitly it seems to me; I'm not an insider so I can't say how long this has been going on) to simply deny that certain acts of the Magisterium are even acts of the Magisterium at all, in order to justify an outight rejection of all acts of this supposed non-Magisterium, rather than taking the traditional approach to Magsisterial acts, including non-defining and even apprently erroneous points.  This is why they feel they can presume to pass definitive judgments and assign such censures themselves I imagine.


Reply
(07-03-2013, 02:43 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Without getting into the specific points that are controverted (which would each need their own thread),

Agreed. That would be a major distraction from the thread itself

Quote:the problem is we are not dealing with the writings of theologians here so it is not within the SSPX's competency to assign such censures to those doctrines (assuming their ministry was even legitimate).

Fair enough. I would concede that the SSPX has no competence to assign ecclesiastical censures, even if legitimate. I should note, that the SSPX doesn't claim this competenece.

However, for the sake of addressing the points of controversy, it is important to put the discussion on the level of theology terms, not ambiguous lay terms.

The poster to whom I was responding was suggesting that the SSPX claims that Vatican II contain "formal heresy". These arguments were presented to explain that this is a very specialized term, with very specific meaning, and that the SSPX does not hold this position.

Quote:The fact that these doctrines are taught by an Ecumenical Council gives them the theological note of at least "Catholic doctrine," the denial of which receives the cesure of temerity.  Traditionally, theologians have adjusted the theological note that they assign to doctrines when the Magisterium intervenes, even in a non-definitive way.

Perhaps here is where we would disagree. The problem is that we have statements, on these controverted points, that appear to be Magisterial (one from Vatican II, one from a previous Pope or Council) which seem impossible to reconcile.

Two contradictory propositions cannot at the same time be "Catholic doctrine". And in the face of such apparent contradiction the argument for temerity seems hard to sustain. Given that even those in good standing with the Holy See, and of high theological repute are questioning the "Hermeneutic of Continuity", and the clear sense of the texts seems to suggest this hermeneutic is untenable, there is plenty of room for doubt and debate.

Quote:This problem flows from the more fundamental problem of the SSPX (which I may have mentioned earlier in the thread). The fundamental problem with the SSPX is they  have begun (at least more explicitly it seems to me; I'm not an insider so I can't say how long this has been going on) to simply deny that certain acts of the Magisterium are even acts of the Magisterium at all, in order to justify an outight rejection of all acts of this supposed non-Magisterium, rather than taking the traditional approach to Magsisterial acts, including non-defining and even apprently erroneous points.  This is why they feel they can presume to pass definitive judgments and assign such censures themselves I imagine.

Except as I mentioned, the SSPX does not presume to assign censure or pass judgement. The whole series of doctrinal discussions should demonstrate that the Society does not consider itself a judge of the Magisterium.

Rather, the SSPX is looking to the present Magisterium to solve these contradictions, hence the doctrinal discussions.

But the authorities continue the ipse dixit, that Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council, and thus all it's content must be continuous with the past, so when we see apparent contradictions, then we know that they are not contradictions, but really continuous.

That some would deny an act is Magisterial is an understandable when it is the only apparent solution, and those who have the power to teach with the Magisterial authority refuse to offer another solution.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)