Private Revelations
#11
(07-25-2015, 05:12 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Yes, I know a good priest who apparently think the CDF's declarations are infallible, in the sense that they are teachings of the magisterium that we cannot disagree with..

The CDF is not a subject of infallibility. Only the Pope is such.

What we could say, to be accurate, is that the CDF reiterates a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, which Magisterium is infallible. The CDF, like you or I, are just telling the doctrine which happens to be infallible, but the CDF itself is not, and cannot be infallible.

Their decrees may reflect the common teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, but they are neither the Pope, nor the Magisterium themselves.
Reply
#12
(07-26-2015, 06:12 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The CDF is not a subject of infallibility. Only the Pope is such.

What about the college of bishops? To be sure, they must act in union with the Pope, and the Pope can act on his own initiative and without consent, but the college is still part of the Magisterium.
Reply
#13
(07-26-2015, 08:38 PM)Acolyte Wrote:
(07-26-2015, 06:12 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The CDF is not a subject of infallibility. Only the Pope is such.

What about the college of bishops? To be sure, they must act in union with the Pope, and the Pope can act on his own initiative and without consent, but the college is still part of the Magisterium.

The "college of bishops" is not, according to the traditional Ecclesiology, a moral body that could be the subject of infallibility. It is a new concept intended to promote a democratic, collegial understanding of the Church in an effort to make the Pope a primus inter pares.

As regards the ordinary Magisterium and the bishops, individual bishops are not the subject of infallibility, but when bishops, (1) in communion with one another and with the pope, teach, (2) the same doctrine, (3) authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals (4) as something to be held definitively by the  faithful, we have an the ordinary Magisterium teaching infallibly.

The Pope would teach infallibly under the same conditions (mutatis mutandis), and the bishops participate in that when they too teach the same doctrine, but they do not form a moral group that in infallible on their own.

This group is only unified by the Pope, so in reality, it's never distinct from the Pope. The "college" is only a logical concept then. It only exists in the mind, and is not a real body or group of itself. To say "college of bishops" then, is a meaningless term, unless, one wants to try to confuse the bishops and their succession to the episcopal office of the Apostles with the special power the the Apostles had which was not given to their successors, save in a certain way, St. Peter's successor.

So, as regards the CDF, they act in the pope's name, but their acts are not considered as personally from the Pope unless he approves them in forma specifica -- explicitly and extraordinarily. Then one has to consider the same conditions above.
Reply
#14
I think private revelations being celebrated in the liturgy might give them even more weight.  I'm not sure how that would effect infallibility though.  The Church of Christ worships in spirit and in truth, not in error, but "historical error" might be admitted, even while moral or doctrinal error is not.

(07-26-2015, 11:13 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-26-2015, 08:38 PM)Acolyte Wrote:
(07-26-2015, 06:12 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The CDF is not a subject of infallibility. Only the Pope is such.

What about the college of bishops? To be sure, they must act in union with the Pope, and the Pope can act on his own initiative and without consent, but the college is still part of the Magisterium.

The "college of bishops" is not, according to the traditional Ecclesiology, a moral body that could be the subject of infallibility. It is a new concept intended to promote a democratic, collegial understanding of the Church in an effort to make the Pope a primus inter pares.

We've been through this before, and this is your opinion, but it does not line up with history.  This was hashed out at the First Vatican Council and was to be included in the Constitution on the Church then.  The full, and supreme authority of governing and teaching the Church is found both in the Roman Pontiff alone and in the college of bishops as a whole (which includes the Roman Pontiff).  This was also reaffirmed at the First Vatican Council by the Deputatio Fide multiple times when concerns  were raised by various fathers that this doctrine might be obscured by certain formulations used to describe papal authority--at that time, considering the Pope alone as supreme was a more debated issue.  If your opinion later became considered the "traditional" opinion, it is only because those concerns were valid, not because that was the doctrine of the Church taught at Vatican I or prior to it.

Quote:As regards the ordinary Magisterium and the bishops, individual bishops are not the subject of infallibility, but when bishops, (1) in communion with one another and with the pope, teach, (2) the same doctrine, (3) authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals (4) as something to be held definitively by the  faithful, we have an the ordinary Magisterium teaching infallibly.

The Pope would teach infallibly under the same conditions (mutatis mutandis), and the bishops participate in that when they too teach the same doctrine, but they do not form a moral group that in infallible on their own.

This first part is what the Church teaches and the second is also, if by "on their own" you mean all the bishops except the Bishop of Rome.  The Bishop of Rome is the head and an integral member of the college.

Quote:This group is only unified by the Pope, so in reality, it's never distinct from the Pope. The "college" is only a logical concept then. It only exists in the mind, and is not a real body or group of itself. To say "college of bishops" then, is a meaningless term, unless, one wants to try to confuse the bishops and their succession to the episcopal office of the Apostles with the special power the the Apostles had which was not given to their successors, save in a certain way, St. Peter's successor.

The first two sentences are true, but what follows is not.  It always exists because bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome always exist.  However, it is not always "active" or engaged in collegial activity and of course, can only do so together with the Pope, not without his consent or in communion with him.  But that doesn't mean it only exists in the mind.  Of course, you are correct to say that the extraordinary charisms of the Apostles should not be thought to therefore apply to the members of the college, but teaching that the college exists in reality does not necessarily mean this.  You should review the preliminary note to Lumen Gentium.
Reply
#15
Sebastian,

I'm not interested in taking the thread off topic.

We can argue the fine points, but history, as you say, speaks for itself.

We see outcome following from Vatican II -- Collegiality, Democratization, Chaos.

We see the powelessness of the Pope in the face of the "college of bishops".

And add to that, the very fact that a Nota Prævia was needed to be added to the Lumen Gentium to try to save it from error is proof that the text is not an expression of the "traditional" doctrine. You can try to rest assured that the Nota Prævia saves it, but in reality it is a self-condemnation of the document and the council which produced such a flawed document that demanded such a note.
Reply
#16
(07-25-2015, 01:27 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I've been wondering about this private revelation business. We're told we are not bound to believe on any private revelation under the pain of heresy, but still the Church recognize those revelations, so they must be true, right? Or is the Church fallible in this respect because it doesn't intend to bound the whole Church?

And if this is so, the documents of the CDF concerning, say, Fatima, are also fallible, right?

Thanks.

St Louis De Montfort said its more simple to believe all the Church had accepted :) (I think even if not required).
Reply
#17
(07-27-2015, 05:30 PM)little_flower10 Wrote:
(07-25-2015, 01:27 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I've been wondering about this private revelation business. We're told we are not bound to believe on any private revelation under the pain of heresy, but still the Church recognize those revelations, so they must be true, right? Or is the Church fallible in this respect because it doesn't intend to bound the whole Church?

And if this is so, the documents of the CDF concerning, say, Fatima, are also fallible, right?

Thanks.

St Louis De Montfort said its more simple to believe all the Church had accepted :) (I think even if not required).

Great advice. The problem is what is from the Church, and what is from churchmen who do not speak for the Church when they teach error?

In the time of St. Louis de Montfort, that was hardly a valid question. Today it is a most important one.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)