Authority of Vatican 2
#11
(11-10-2019, 07:24 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: the pope's infallibility is dependent on the Church.

Since when? Sounds like crypto-Orthdox heresy to me.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#12
(11-10-2019, 07:25 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 06:01 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: I am being received into the Ukrainian Byzantine rite. Greek Catholics do not acknowledge anything past Nicaea II as dogmatic authority. This is based on first millennium rules on ecumenical councils.

Half of my family are Greek Catholics (of Slavic rites). We accept all of the Ecumenical Councils.

The Orthodox reject these, and that is one reason they are schismatics. Those "rules" you mention are made up by the Orthodox to reject the Church of Christ and justify their separation.

I think you have been given bogus advice from someone who is at least crypto-Orthodox.

Anyway, whether people accept it or not, dogmatic definitions like which are found in Trent and Vatican I are binding on all Catholics, and to deny them would be heresy. To quibble about the theological definitions of certain things (e.g. the Immaculate Conception) is not a problem, but to deny the dogmatic authority of what has been declared by the Vicar of Christ or all the Ecumenical Councils as being required to be believed by Faith is to reject the Faith.

No disrespect meant to anyone, but if you will recall newenglandsun mentioned months ago the heterodoxy into which he was being initiated by his catechist.  I countered with an anecdote regarding the correspondence I had with a Byzantine bishop who opposed this catechist's heterodoxy.

The point the bishop made was that all catholics are bound to assent by faith to all the Church proposes to be divinely revealed whether in her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
[-] The following 2 users Like yablabo's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#13
(11-10-2019, 08:12 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 07:25 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 06:01 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: I am being received into the Ukrainian Byzantine rite. Greek Catholics do not acknowledge anything past Nicaea II as dogmatic authority. This is based on first millennium rules on ecumenical councils.

Half of my family are Greek Catholics (of Slavic rites). We accept all of the Ecumenical Councils.

The Orthodox reject these, and that is one reason they are schismatics. Those "rules" you mention are made up by the Orthodox to reject the Church of Christ and justify their separation.

I think you have been given bogus advice from someone who is at least crypto-Orthodox.

Anyway, whether people accept it or not, dogmatic definitions like which are found in Trent and Vatican I are binding on all Catholics, and to deny them would be heresy. To quibble about the theological definitions of certain things (e.g. the Immaculate Conception) is not a problem, but to deny the dogmatic authority of what has been declared by the Vicar of Christ or all the Ecumenical Councils as being required to be believed by Faith is to reject the Faith.

No disrespect meant to anyone, but if you will recall newenglandsun mentioned months ago the heterodoxy into which he was being initiated by his catechist.  I countered with an anecdote regarding the correspondence I had with a Byzantine bishop who opposed this catechist's heterodoxy.

The point the bishop made was that all catholics are bound to assent by faith to all the Church proposes to be divinely revealed whether in her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

Thanks for that reminder. While I'd recalled the case I'd forgotten that was him.
Reply
#14
(11-10-2019, 08:28 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 08:12 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 07:25 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 06:01 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: I am being received into the Ukrainian Byzantine rite. Greek Catholics do not acknowledge anything past Nicaea II as dogmatic authority. This is based on first millennium rules on ecumenical councils.

Half of my family are Greek Catholics (of Slavic rites). We accept all of the Ecumenical Councils.

The Orthodox reject these, and that is one reason they are schismatics. Those "rules" you mention are made up by the Orthodox to reject the Church of Christ and justify their separation.

I think you have been given bogus advice from someone who is at least crypto-Orthodox.

Anyway, whether people accept it or not, dogmatic definitions like which are found in Trent and Vatican I are binding on all Catholics, and to deny them would be heresy. To quibble about the theological definitions of certain things (e.g. the Immaculate Conception) is not a problem, but to deny the dogmatic authority of what has been declared by the Vicar of Christ or all the Ecumenical Councils as being required to be believed by Faith is to reject the Faith.

No disrespect meant to anyone, but if you will recall newenglandsun mentioned months ago the heterodoxy into which he was being initiated by his catechist.  I countered with an anecdote regarding the correspondence I had with a Byzantine bishop who opposed this catechist's heterodoxy.

The point the bishop made was that all catholics are bound to assent by faith to all the Church proposes to be divinely revealed whether in her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

Thanks for that reminder. While I'd recalled the case I'd forgotten that was him.
MOST Byzantines I know would concur with my assessment of the ecumenical councils. And I further would point out the hypocrisy of Latins who would assess this current Pope as a heretic and yet simultaneously insist that all other papal decrees are infallible. Vatican I is problematic on the basis that it was never even formally completed. I do not see how it could be held binding any more than Vatican II.
Reply
#15
(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: MOST Byzantines I know would concur with my assessment of the ecumenical councils. And I further would point out the hypocrisy of Latins who would assess this current Pope as a heretic and yet simultaneously insist that all other papal decrees are infallible. Vatican I is problematic on the basis that it was never even formally completed. I do not see how it could be held binding any more than Vatican II.

The reason you find the decrees of the First Vatican Council problematic is that you either have no rule of faith (rationem fidei) or the have wrong rule of faith, not because the council was not formally completed. 

Most of the adherents to Byzantine catholicism that you know are likely in the same condition.

Your judgment of the hypocrisy of Latins also stems from the same problem viz. the rule of faith.
[-] The following 2 users Like yablabo's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#16
(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: MOST Byzantines I know would concur with my assessment of the ecumenical councils. And I further would point out the hypocrisy of Latins who would assess this current Pope as a heretic and yet simultaneously insist that all other papal decrees are infallible. Vatican I is problematic on the basis that it was never even formally completed. I do not see how it could be held binding any more than Vatican II.

1) I doubt that most Byzantine Catholics are heretics, but even if they are it doesn't make them right, it just makes them heretics. 2) Who here has ever claimed that 'all other papal decrees are infallible'? I don't recall anyone in the almost 14 years I've been swimming in the Tank claiming that. And, 3) what in the world does the First Vatican Council not having been completed have to do with it? The Decrees were voted on, passed, signed and promulgated by the Holy Father. Several Bishops left Rome in order not to be seen to agree with with the Decree Pastor Æternus (On Infallibility), but only two voted non placet (no), both Latins. As far as I know ALL of the Eastern Rite Bishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs voted placet (yes).

But now, crypto-orthodox heretics are teaching you doctrine that is opposed to the Catholic Faith. I suggest you get out of there and find yourself a Catholic Priest of whatever Rite to receive you into the Catholic Church, not some crypto-orthodox heretical conventicle. Or, alternatively, just go to an Orthodox Church. You'll have the same heretical doctrine without the hypocrisy of pretending it's Catholic.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#17
(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: And I further would point out the hypocrisy of Latins who would assess this current Pope as a heretic and yet simultaneously insist that all other papal decrees are infallible.

It's not hypocrisy, because we don't insist this.

As you may read in many places infallibility is an extremely limited negative charism of the Pope. If he defines something on Faith or Morals as needing to be believed by all because it is a revealed truth, then he can't be wrong. Aside from this, he can be wrong, and even fall into personal heresy. He just cannot bind the Church to profess heresy as truth.

So your whole characterization is wrong, and I'd bet this is because that's what you've been taught by this supposed "catechist".

(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Vatican I is problematic on the basis that it was never even formally completed. I do not see how it could be held binding any more than Vatican II.

So, just because the last schema on the Church was never discussed or approved, even though all the formalities for the other documents were completed it somehow invalidates the others? How's that?

If I am tasked with completing three essays for a course, and fail to turn in one essay because of some pressing issue, but still earn passing marks, does this call into question the validity of my passing mark?

Totally arbitrary standard to question Vatican I. I would point out to willfully doubt what it teaches as revealed truth is heresy.

But whether it was completed or not according to your judgement doesn't really matter. The Pope made these decrees his own by his approval. What they therefore define as "of Faith" are thus formally defined by the Pope, and so completion of the Council doesn't affect them.
Reply
#18
(11-10-2019, 11:02 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: MOST Byzantines I know would concur with my assessment of the ecumenical councils. And I further would point out the hypocrisy of Latins who would assess this current Pope as a heretic and yet simultaneously insist that all other papal decrees are infallible. Vatican I is problematic on the basis that it was never even formally completed. I do not see how it could be held binding any more than Vatican II.

1) I doubt that most Byzantine Catholics are heretics, but even if they are it doesn't make them right, it just makes them heretics. 2) Who here has ever claimed that 'all other papal decrees are infallible'? I don't recall anyone in the almost 14 years I've been swimming in the Tank claiming that. And, 3) what in the world does the First Vatican Council not having been completed have to do with it? The Decrees were voted on, passed, signed and promulgated by the Holy Father. Several Bishops left Rome in order not to be seen to agree with with the Decree Pastor Æternus (On Infallibility), but only two voted non placet (no), both Latins. As far as I know ALL of the Eastern Rite Bishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs voted placet (yes).

But now, crypto-orthodox heretics are teaching you doctrine that is opposed to the Catholic Faith. I suggest you get out of there and find yourself a Catholic Priest of whatever Rite to receive you into the Catholic Church, not some crypto-orthodox heretical conventicle. Or, alternatively, just go to an Orthodox Church. You'll have the same heretical doctrine without the hypocrisy of pretending it's Catholic.

If I believe it heresy then I would go Orthodox. If it is heresy to the Church I claim faith to, then I trust God will sort out the confusion. Do I believe it heresy? The history of church tradition suggests your position is the one that has tampered. I maintain the faith of the first millennium.
Reply
#19
(11-11-2019, 12:04 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: And I further would point out the hypocrisy of Latins who would assess this current Pope as a heretic and yet simultaneously insist that all other papal decrees are infallible.

It's not hypocrisy, because we don't insist this.

As you may read in many places infallibility is an extremely limited negative charism of the Pope. If he defines something on Faith or Morals as needing to be believed by all because it is a revealed truth, then he can't be wrong. Aside from this, he can be wrong, and even fall into personal heresy. He just cannot bind the Church to profess heresy as truth.

So your whole characterization is wrong, and I'd bet this is because that's what you've been taught by this supposed "catechist".

(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Vatican I is problematic on the basis that it was never even formally completed. I do not see how it could be held binding any more than Vatican II.

So, just because the last schema on the Church was never discussed or approved, even though all the formalities for the other documents were completed it somehow invalidates the others? How's that?

If I am tasked with completing three essays for a course, and fail to turn in one essay because of some pressing issue, but still earn passing marks, does this call into question the validity of my passing mark?

Totally arbitrary standard to question Vatican I. I would point out to willfully doubt what it teaches as revealed truth is heresy.

But whether it was completed or not according to your judgement doesn't really matter. The Pope made these decrees his own by his approval. What they therefore define as "of Faith" are thus formally defined by the Pope, and so completion of the Council doesn't affect them.
Even Lord Acton died in full communion with the Church. You state that my questioning its authority is arbitrary ignoring the first millennium rules on what makes a council ecumenically binding and then stating arbitrarily that the pope made the decrees infallible by his approval. So really the authority of Vatican I is based on circular reasoning?
Reply
#20
(11-11-2019, 12:57 AM)newenglandsun Wrote:
(11-11-2019, 12:04 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: And I further would point out the hypocrisy of Latins who would assess this current Pope as a heretic and yet simultaneously insist that all other papal decrees are infallible.

It's not hypocrisy, because we don't insist this.

As you may read in many places infallibility is an extremely limited negative charism of the Pope. If he defines something on Faith or Morals as needing to be believed by all because it is a revealed truth, then he can't be wrong. Aside from this, he can be wrong, and even fall into personal heresy. He just cannot bind the Church to profess heresy as truth.

So your whole characterization is wrong, and I'd bet this is because that's what you've been taught by this supposed "catechist".

(11-10-2019, 09:46 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Vatican I is problematic on the basis that it was never even formally completed. I do not see how it could be held binding any more than Vatican II.

So, just because the last schema on the Church was never discussed or approved, even though all the formalities for the other documents were completed it somehow invalidates the others? How's that?

If I am tasked with completing three essays for a course, and fail to turn in one essay because of some pressing issue, but still earn passing marks, does this call into question the validity of my passing mark?

Totally arbitrary standard to question Vatican I. I would point out to willfully doubt what it teaches as revealed truth is heresy.

But whether it was completed or not according to your judgement doesn't really matter. The Pope made these decrees his own by his approval. What they therefore define as "of Faith" are thus formally defined by the Pope, and so completion of the Council doesn't affect them.
Even Lord Acton died in full communion with the Church. You state that my questioning its authority is arbitrary ignoring the first millennium rules on what makes a council ecumenically binding and then stating arbitrarily that the pope made the decrees infallible by his approval. So really the authority of Vatican I is based on circular reasoning?

Nothing divinely revealed is based in human reason.  The source is the Most August Trinity.
[-] The following 1 user Likes yablabo's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)