Interpret a passage w/informed scholarship?
#11
(01-21-2020, 11:16 PM)KIM.T Wrote: Books you quoted are certainly not infallible even if they have imprimaturs.

Nor were they every claimed to be, but what I quoted was one of the best manuals of Scripture study for most Englihs-speaking priests during the 1940s-1960s in most seminaries.

If we are merely limited to infallible sources in learning the Faith, we're going to come away quite stunted and unlearned, since the Faith is far more than just want has been infallible defined.

(01-21-2020, 11:16 PM)KIM.T Wrote: The CCC is infallible in any definitive teaching (doctrines) that has been promulgated by the Ordinary Magisterium throughout the ages.

So is any book.

In fact, it is not the book that is infallible, but the teaching.

Further, the Ordinary Magisterium does not promulgate doctrines. The ordinary magisterium is not some active thing but a deposit of the constant teachings of the Church in matters which are revealed.

As I pointed out, the CCC contains error and possible heresy. You seem to have missed or ignored that point.

(01-21-2020, 11:16 PM)KIM.T Wrote: St JPII told us

He's not a Saint. He was a public sinner, who never repented for his grave and open violation of the First Commandment at Assisi—the one in which he openly allowed and encouraged pagan worship in a Catholic Basilica.

I hope he's in heaven, as I hope everyone goes there, but no the Church has never before declared a seemingly unrepentant public sinner as a Saint before.

That's been discussed to death here before, and you're welcome to look up the various pictures of John Paul II's participation in pagan worship.

(01-21-2020, 11:16 PM)KIM.T Wrote: We have to agree to disagree- because we have different outlooks on basic theological issues. We cannot be going back and forth for ever.

You're welcome to leave the discussion at any point, but I have a moral duty to correct your errors given what I've learned and my longstanding time at FE.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#12
This reminds me of Catholic Answers Forums.

There was a conversation, where people refused to believe 1Cor11 on the mortal consequences for unworthy reception of the Eucharist -- because no one could find an infallible statement on the subject, or a sainted (he had to be sainted) Church father.

Forget for a moment whether you can dig one up. Think: The plain sense of the text before them, with every academic from every school confirming it, they would not accept the Word of God, because no popes explained, that what Paul obviously said, Paul obviously said.

There is a great danger in the "I have no capacity to think for myself; let's be ultramontanists" way of doing things.

It starts out with a vague recognition that sometimes it is tough to understand someone, then creeps to an absolute agnosticism on the Bible, but only when presented with texts you don't like.
[-] The following 2 users Like 19405's post:
  • Fionnchu, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#13
(01-21-2020, 11:16 PM)KIM.T Wrote: MagisterMusicae,


Books you quoted are certainly not infallible even if they have imprimaturs.

The CCC is infallible in any definitive teaching (doctrines) that has been promulgated by the Ordinary Magisterium throughout the ages. St JPII told us this:

"..and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life...…...he Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a "valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion" and as a "sure norm for teaching the faith," as well as a "sure and authentic reference text" for preparing local catechisms "
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a...osletr.htm

We have to agree to disagree- because we have different outlooks on basic theological issues. We cannot be going back and forth for ever.
You have to qualify JPII's statement of the magisterial weight of the Catechism (As it existed in the '80s, by the way) with other statements in that same apostolic constitution (which outranks Catechisms) that says: 

The CCC "is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences."
Reply
#14
(01-28-2020, 03:33 PM)19405 Wrote: This reminds me of Catholic Answers Forums.

There was a conversation, where people refused to believe 1Cor11 on the mortal consequences for unworthy reception of the Eucharist -- because no one could find an infallible statement on the subject, or a sainted (he had to be sainted) Church father.

Forget for a moment whether you can dig one up. Think: The plain sense of the text before them, with every academic from every school confirming it, they would not accept the Word of God, because no popes explained, that what Paul obviously said, Paul obviously said.

There is a great danger in the "I have no capacity to think for myself; let's be ultramontanists" way of doing things.

It starts out with a vague recognition that sometimes it is tough to understand someone, then creeps to an absolute agnosticism on the Bible, but only when presented with texts you don't like.

It's interesting, of course, that the Traditionalists on the forum would suggest using non-Papal sources, and some thinking, and the visitor from another forum (and self-claimed moderator of that forum, perhaps CA), would insist on being an Uber-Ultramontainist.

If anything it is the Traditionalists, or Integralists, as the French call them, that tend to be associated with the anti-Liberal Ultramontainist viewpoint (incorrectly, of course).
Reply
#15
(01-28-2020, 04:44 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(01-28-2020, 03:33 PM)19405 Wrote: This reminds me of Catholic Answers Forums.

There was a conversation, where people refused to believe 1Cor11 on the mortal consequences for unworthy reception of the Eucharist -- because no one could find an infallible statement on the subject, or a sainted (he had to be sainted) Church father.

Forget for a moment whether you can dig one up. Think: The plain sense of the text before them, with every academic from every school confirming it, they would not accept the Word of God, because no popes explained, that what Paul obviously said, Paul obviously said.

There is a great danger in the "I have no capacity to think for myself; let's be ultramontanists" way of doing things.

It starts out with a vague recognition that sometimes it is tough to understand someone, then creeps to an absolute agnosticism on the Bible, but only when presented with texts you don't like.

It's interesting, of course, that the Traditionalists on the forum would suggest using non-Papal sources, and some thinking, and the visitor from another forum (and self-claimed moderator of that forum, perhaps CA), would insist on being an Uber-Ultramontainist.

If anything it is the Traditionalists, or Integralists, as the French call them, that tend to be associated with the anti-Liberal Ultramontainist viewpoint (incorrectly, of course).

It's incorrect to be anti-Uber-Ultramontanist?

[Edit: misread you].
Reply
#16
(01-21-2020, 09:15 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: And besides this, it was designed to repeat errors from Vatican II, including the absolutely false no. 841 : "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Muslims worship a false God, not the Trinity.

What about the Jews? Do they also worship a false God, and when they did stop worshipping the Father?

And if God desires every man to be saved, and gives every man the grace to save his soul, even if most of them reject it and are damned, are not all men part of God's plan of salvation?
Reply
#17
(01-28-2020, 07:01 PM)Paul Wrote:
(01-21-2020, 09:15 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: And besides this, it was designed to repeat errors from Vatican II, including the absolutely false no. 841 : "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Muslims worship a false God, not the Trinity.

What about the Jews? Do they also worship a false God, and when they did stop worshipping the Father?

And if God desires every man to be saved, and gives every man the grace to save his soul, even if most of them reject it and are damned, are not all men part of God's plan of salvation?

I'd say yes, the Jews at present worship a false god secundum quid (in a certain way). This is because God is a Trinity, has clearly revealed that, and the Second Person of that Trinity has become Incarnate to do so. The Jews formally reject God as such, substituting an imperfect idea for the Truth about God.

It would be different for a monotheistic Deist who worshiped an imperfect idea of a singular God when he did not have a fuller revelation, but did not reject the True God. 

The point at which this happened was sometime at or after the rejection of Christ by the High Priest and Sanhedrin and, at the latest, the destruction of the Temple. At this point all of the sacrificial rites demanded by God became useless (mortua). When the Temple was destroyed, the rites became impossible to properly offer, so their use became an explicit rejection of Christ. and as St Thomas Aquinas suggests the rites were no longer just mortua (dead) but mortifera (bringing of death).

As regards the Salvation of everyone, yes. God desires all who react the age of reason to be saved, even if most reject it. The Physician has offered the medicine necessary to be cured and saved, it becomes the fault of the patient if he reject the sufficient medicine. The difficulty comes about those who do not reach the age of reason and are not Baptized. We've discussed that before, as I recall.
Reply
#18
(01-28-2020, 09:28 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I'd say yes, the Jews at present worship a false god secundum quid (in a certain way). This is because God is a Trinity, has clearly revealed that, and the Second Person of that Trinity has become Incarnate to do so. The Jews formally reject God as such, substituting an imperfect idea for the Truth about God.


But at what point do wrong ideas about something or someone mean that you're referring to something else entirely?



Are two people, one of whom insists that Bruce Jenner is a man, and one who insists he is a woman named Caitlyn and refers to him as 'she' talking about two different people?



If not, why do those who believe different things about God not just heretics? We don't say that Arians believe in a different Jesus; while they deny His divinity, they mean the same person who walked the earth 2000 years ago that we call Jesus of Nazareth and that orthodox Christians believe is the Second Person of the Trinity and the Son of God.



That's not, of course, to say that Jewish or Muslim worship of God is acceptable to Him, since He's revealed the Mass to us and given us the Church. I'd say the Jews worship the true God in a false way, or perhaps a false idea of God, but their worship is still directed towards the Trinity. They just refuse to believe in the other two Persons.




(01-28-2020, 09:28 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: As regards the Salvation of everyone, yes. God desires all who react the age of reason to be saved, even if most reject it. The Physician has offered the medicine necessary to be cured and saved, it becomes the fault of the patient if he reject the sufficient medicine. The difficulty comes about those who do not reach the age of reason and are not Baptized. We've discussed that before, as I recall.




Then if God desires that they be saved, even if they're not, it could be said that they're part of his plan of salvation. Would we say that baptised Catholics who commit mortal sin and end up in hell are not part of God's plan of salvation? I think not.



The interpretation that those who wrote the statement is obviously to encourage people to believe that Islam is a Good Thing and leads to salvation. But that's not the same thing as saying Muslims are part of God's plan, which can easily be interpreted as meaning only that God desires all to be saved and gives them the grace to do so. And that's hardly heresy. It's not really any different that "for all" at the consecration of the wine, since Jesus did die for all, even if only "many" will be saved.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • 19405
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)