If Pope Francis allows.....
#31
(12-31-2013, 04:25 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: When I say that particular popes taught serious theological and philosophical error, I am not criticizing the Magisterium. Not in the least. God forbid I should question for a moment that divinely-instituted teaching authority! What I criticize is the personal theological and philosophical errors of these men, and I don't do so because of my own personal theological opinion, but on the basis of what the magisterium has already taught clearly.

Your personal theological opinion is that they differ.  The pope and bishops in union with him conclude otherwise.  You prefer your own theological opinion.

I would be interested in your response to the blog post, Why I Left the SSPX Milieu.
Reply
#32
(12-31-2013, 05:12 AM)Clare Brigid Wrote:
(12-31-2013, 04:25 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: When I say that particular popes taught serious theological and philosophical error, I am not criticizing the Magisterium. Not in the least. God forbid I should question for a moment that divinely-instituted teaching authority! What I criticize is the personal theological and philosophical errors of these men, and I don't do so because of my own personal theological opinion, but on the basis of what the magisterium has already taught clearly.

Your personal theological opinion is that they differ.  The pope and bishops in union with him conclude otherwise.  You prefer your own theological opinion.

First, I'm sorry, but your argument is a massive ipse dixit.

The Pope says X. I think X is not compatible with Y. Therefore X is compatible with Y. -- You make the minor irrelevant. Thus your syllogism is reduced to only one premise: The Pope says X so X is compatible with Y. That is simply not the Church's teaching on papal infallibility.

Second, I don't have a theological opinion. I am not qualified to make one, as I am not a theologian. Had I the studies to support such an opinion, perhaps I could offer one. Since I don't I rely on the magisterium.

But, what I can determine by basic Logic (not a theological opinion) is that the principle of non-contradiction applies just as much to theological statements as it does every day speech. Two mutually exclusive things cannot be and not be at the same time in the same way.

Thus if the traditional teaching of the magisterium on a point (P) and the present teaching of those who hold the authority to teach (Q) differ there are three possibilities:
  • 1. P is false, and Q is true.
  • 2. P and Q are both true: Q is a restatement or precision of P.
  • 3. The P is true, and the Q is false (not truly magisterial).
[br]Number 1 is excluded because this would contradict the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the magisterium.
Number 2 is excluded if P and Q are mutually exclusive, and possible in other cases.
Number 3 is the only possibility if P and Q are truly mutually exclusive.

But I can show that in my example, only the third possibility can be admitted, i.e. The former and present teachings are mutually exclusive. Thus the former is correct, and the present is erroneous.

This is because the two teachings concern the present existence of the Old Covenant as valid and salvific. Either:
  • a. the Old Covenant is not operative and salvific any longer, or
  • b. the Old Covenant is still operative and salvific.
[br]The one excludes the other. The Old Covenant cannot presently exist and not exist. The former teaching is a, the later is the teaching since Nostra Aetate. They cannot be reconciled because the Old Covenant cannot both be and not be operative and salvific.

That's not opinion, that's basic Logic.

And we have clear statements of the magisterium, scripture and the Fathers to support the traditional teaching. On the other had we have Nostra Aetate which plays loose with the term "Jew" and "Jewish", confusing the Jewish race with the Jewish (Pharisaical) religion.

I prefer the magisterial teaching on Romans 11 which has support in other parts of scripture, the fathers and the magisterium and not the radically opposed new teaching which has not a single magisterial statement in nineteen centuries to support it.

Clare Brigid Wrote:I would be interested in your response to the blog post, Why I Left the SSPX Milieu.

I would consider a response to something that was presented as such, and were in a form which suits argument. As it stands it is a rambling personal story, not a series of arguments to be answered. It does contain some arguments for the personal theological opinion of the author, but its unstructured nature and in that it was not intended to be an argument against the SSPX (as the blogger states in the opening lines), it would need to be put into a form that is suitable for discussion.

Do that and put it in the proper subforum (SSPX discussion) in the new day or two (when I will have time to address it), and you will have my attention.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)