A Contradiction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cspb56
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
adrift said:
You need to cite your source. It is not a source from the Church so it is meaningless and dishonest.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE:

I did cite my source. “That Catholic Church,” Radio Replies Press, 1954. As I mentioned, the Church itself publishes no such list. However, it does grant imprimaturs and nihil obstats to books that contain no conflict with Catholic teachings.

Here is one of the papal ex cathedra infallible teachings on the list.

Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura (1864):

"And from this wholly false idea of social organisation they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely **that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, **and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society… Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church."

But, along came Vatican II. And this infallible teaching denying liberty of conscience was reversed.

Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, 1964

The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person.… This right to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right."

Sorry, Pope Pius IX You goofed.😉
 
JP_Marat said:
RESPONSE:

I did cite my source. “That Catholic Church,” Radio Replies Press, 1954. As I mentioned, the Church itself publishes no such list. However, it does grant imprimaturs and nihil obstats to books that contain no conflict with Catholic teachings.

Here is one of the papal ex cathedra infallible teachings on the list.

Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura (1864):

"And from this wholly false idea of social organisation they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely **that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, **and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society… Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church."

But, along came Vatican II. And this infallible teaching denying liberty of conscience was reversed.

Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, 1964

The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person.… This right to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right."

Sorry, Pope Pius IX You goofed.😉
Click to expand...
There is condemnation. There is absolutely no level of infallibility (except by your misunderstood idea of what it is.););)😉
 
JP_Marat said:
Council of Trent, 4th Session

“It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold;”
.
Click to expand...
Link
For this document in context
However, we now know that the Church was in error in it’s interpreation of Psalm 104, the Joshua miracle of the sun story, etc.
Click to expand...
Document that the Church officially taught your version of Psalm
 
JP_Marat said:
RESPONSE:

I did cite my source. “That Catholic Church,” Radio Replies Press, 1954. As I mentioned, the Church itself publishes no such list. However, it does grant imprimaturs and nihil obstats to books that contain no conflict with Catholic teachings.
Click to expand...
I found a source. I understand now why you would not provide a link
 
adrift said:
I found a source. I understand now why you would not provide a link
Click to expand...
RESPONSE:

I assumed that you knew how to use your “search” function. Evidently you found it. Perhaps you would want to read the entire article.
 
adrift said:
Link
For this document in context

Document that the Church officially taught your version of Psalm
Click to expand...
RESPONSE:

Simple: Read these passages in a Catholic Bible.

Providentissimus:

“For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.”

What else do you think Galileo was condemned for?
 
MrS said:
There is condemnation. There is absolutely no level of infallibility (except by your misunderstood idea of what it is.););)😉
Click to expand...
RESPONSE:

Perhaps you should reread the criteria for infallible papal ex cathedra teachings. If these are met, the teaching is infallible. Its as simple as that. (It cannot not be infallible if the three criteria are met. It claim so iis to “reform” the infallible teaching of Vatican I).
 
Lets take a look at perhaps the shortest of the ex cathedra infallible papal teachings on the list.

Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII, 1302

“Furthermore, **we declare, we proclaim, we define **that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that **every human creature **be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

But now this infallible teachng has been reformed and Jews, Muslims, nonChristians, nonCatholics, agnostics, and even atheists, none of whom are subject to the Pontiff, can be saved. See Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium,16
 
JP_Marat said:
adrift;5952825:
RESPONSE:

Read the words.

"With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected….We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…

Condemned thesis #33: " That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit
Click to expand...
."

Said positively: The Spirit wills that heretics be burned.

And you cannot “reform” the Vatican I teachings on papal ex cathedra infallibility, since the teaching on infallibility itself is infallible.

Vatican I

(**W)e teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma **that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable."

Exsurge Domine was infallible precisely because it meets the criteria for infallibility established by Vatican I. If you claim otherwise, I’m afraid you are in heresy.

Shall we look at some more infallible ex cathedra teachings? There were about 16 as late as 1950, but Vatican II wiped most of them out so we’re left with only two, although some theologians say more.

Hi JP Morat 👋

It is good that I can use the search function, for I found this article by Jimmy Atkins about Exsurge Domine: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

The whole text of Exsurge Domine can be found here: papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

Let us look at the definition of papal infallibility by Vatican I again:

“(W)e teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.”

We then look at the statement you gave us which you purport is an infallible statement:

Condemned thesis #33: " That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

Said positively: The Spirit wills that heretics be burned.

Continued…
Click to expand...
 
In this instance, I am afraid, JP Morat, that you are wrong, by one criterion: definition. According to Jimmy Atkins (catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp):

Defining something is not the same as stating, teaching, declaring, condemning, or what have you. The meaning of this term is explained in a relatio on Pastor Aeternus 4. (A relatio is an official interpretation of the text that is presented to the council bishops by a man called the relator so that the bishops will know the official sense of the text on which they are voting. Thus, what is said in a relatio is key to resolving queries about the meaning of a conciliar text.)

On July 16, 1870, Vincent Gasser, the relator for Pastor Aeternus 4, gave a relatio that explained “the word ‘defines’ signifies that the pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and** does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff**” (Gasser & O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility [Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1986], 74 n.).

This means that, in order for him to define a doctrine to be held by the universal Church, the pope must express himself in such a way that the faithful can know with certitude that he holds a particular proposition to have a particular doctrinal note (de fide, certain, false, proximate to heresy, heretical, et cetera). The faithful are then required to regard it likewise. If the faithful cannot know from what the pope says that a particular proposition is to be regarded in a particular way, then the pope has not defined the matter for the universal Church and thus has not spoken infallibly.

On condemned thesis 33, what the Pope said was it is wrong to say “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” That’s it. The right way to say it positively can be:


  1. *]It is the will of the Spirit to burn SOME of the heretics
    *]It is the will of the Spirit to burn ALL heretics.

    There is still some leeway in the definition. And if the right way to say this thesis positively is the first option, then what are its criteria for burning and not burning? There is still no certain definition in this doctrine. Therefore the thesis, and therefore the whole proclamation is not infallible.

    You then say that Vatican II goes contrary to this “infallible teaching” of Exsurge Domine by citing:

    Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, 1964

    The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person… This right to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right."

    Well, first of all, we have already proved that Exsurge Domine is not infallible. And second, let us remember that Exsurge Domine was sent as a warning to Martin Luther of the threat of excommunication…and therefore was sent while Luther was still a Catholic.

    And is it not a practice of religious liberty for the Church to impose its authority on its faithful, even by threat of capital punishment?

    Yours in Christ through Mary,

    Nuntym
 
I am very sorry, JP Marat, that I spelled your name incorrectly in my previous posts 😦
JP_Marat said:
Lets take a look at perhaps the shortest of the ex cathedra infallible papal teachings on the list.

Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII, 1302

“Furthermore, **we declare, we proclaim, we define **that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that **every human creature **be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

But now this infallible teachng has been reformed and Jews, Muslims, nonChristians, nonCatholics, agnostics, and even atheists, none of whom are subject to the Pontiff, can be saved. See Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium,16
Click to expand...
[

AN EXAMINATION OF THE 3 DE FIDE DECREES ON ‘NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH’](AN EXAMINATION OF 3 DE FIDE DECREES ON �NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH�)

Yours in Christ through Mary,

Nuntym
 
nuntym said:
In this instance, I am afraid, JP Morat, that you are wrong, by one criterion: definition. According to Jimmy Atkins (catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp):

Defining something is not the same as stating, teaching, declaring, condemning, or what have you. The meaning of this term is explained in a relatio on Pastor Aeternus 4. (A relatio is an official interpretation of the text that is presented to the council bishops by a man called the relator so that the bishops will know the official sense of the text on which they are voting. Thus, what is said in a relatio is key to resolving queries about the meaning of a conciliar text.)

On July 16, 1870, Vincent Gasser, the relator for Pastor Aeternus 4, gave a relatio that explained “the word ‘defines’ signifies that the pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and** does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff**” (Gasser & O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility [Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1986], 74 n.).

This means that, in order for him to define a doctrine to be held by the universal Church, the pope must express himself in such a way that the faithful can know with certitude that he holds a particular proposition to have a particular doctrinal note (de fide, certain, false, proximate to heresy, heretical, et cetera). The faithful are then required to regard it likewise. If the faithful cannot know from what the pope says that a particular proposition is to be regarded in a particular way, then the pope has not defined the matter for the universal Church and thus has not spoken infallibly.

On condemned thesis 33, what the Pope said was it is wrong to say “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” That’s it. The right way to say it positively can be:


  1. *]It is the will of the Spirit to burn SOME of the heretics
    *]It is the will of the Spirit to burn ALL heretics.

    There is still some leeway in the definition. And if the right way to say this thesis positively is the first option, then what are its criteria for burning and not burning? There is still no certain definition in this doctrine. Therefore the thesis, and therefore the whole proclamation is not infallible.

    You then say that Vatican II goes contrary to this “infallible teaching” of Exsurge Domine by citing:

    Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, 1964

    The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person… This right to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right."

    Well, first of all, we have already proved that Exsurge Domine is not infallible. And second, let us remember that Exsurge Domine was sent as a warning to Martin Luther of the threat of excommunication…and therefore was sent while Luther was still a Catholic.

    And is it not a practice of religious liberty for the Church to impose its authority on its faithful, even by threat of capital punishment?

    Yours in Christ through Mary,

    Nuntym
Click to expand...

  1. RESPONSE:

    You and Jimmy are trying the typical apologist’s two-step to avoid admitting the error in an “infallible” teaching meeting the criteria for such established “infallibly” by Vatican I. The real issue is the infallible teaching about the will of God.

    What the “infallible” Vatican I decreed , not what somebody else meant, is the infallible
    teaching ,as is what Pope Leo said, not what someone thinks he really meant.

    “Some” or “all” heretics are still heretics that God “wills” to be burned. The pope did not have to use the word “all.”

    The “mind of the pope” is abundently clear on the matter of faith he is teaching.

    "With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and** by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors** as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…

    And a 1964 teaching does not reverse the fact that the 1303 teaching is in error…

    Exsurge domine meets all the criteria for an infallible ex cathedra papal teaching. But it is infallibly a blunder.
 
JP_Marat said:
RESPONSE:

You and Jimmy are trying the typical apologist’s two-step to avoid admitting the error in an “infallible” teaching meeting the criteria for such established “infallibly” by Vatican I. The real issue is the infallible teaching about the will of God.

“Some” or “all” heretics are still heretics that God “wills” to be burned. The pope did not have to use the word “all.”

The “mind of the pope” is abundently clear on the matter of faith he is teaching.

"With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and** by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors** as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…

And a 1964 teaching does not reverse the fact that the 1303 teaching is in error…

Exsurge domine meets all the criteria for an infallible ex cathedra papal teaching. But it is infallibly a blunder.
Click to expand...
I wonder why you did not embolden this one:

"With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as **either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. **By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…

So thesis 33 is which: 1) heretical, 2) scandalous, 3) false, 4) offensive to pious ears, 5) seductive of simple minds, 6) against Catholic truth?

And to have major excommunication imposed on me, should I believe on just thesis 33, or on all of the theses listed?

EDIT: Also, so the Bible is wrong that God sometimes commanded capital punishment on some offenses on religious grounds (Ex. 22:18, 20; Deut. 13:5, 8–10, 15, 18:20)?

Yours in Christ through Mary,

Nuntym
 
Nunyym tells us the Jimmy Akin says that the Papal Bull Exsurge Domine isn’t really infallible. But it meets the criteria of Vatican I for an infallible ex cathedra teaching.
Here’s a contrary view

The dogma of Papal Infallibility was proclaimed by the papal bull … under the guarantee of Papal infallibility, and not only “de fide” definitions… …www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf

The first text to consider is the famous bull Exsurge Domine promulgated by Pope Leo X against Martin Luther.Let us carefully study the text of this bull and observe how all five
criteria are indeed fulfilled:
  1. The definition comes from the pope himself.
  2. He is acting as Pastor of all the Faithful:
    In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor” and
    “We forbid each and every one of the Faithful…
  3. He invokes his apostolic authority:
    When you were about to ascend to Your Father, You committed the care,
    rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant
    Church, to Peter, as the head and Your vicar and his successors. Rise,
    Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned
    above. In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine
    favor…
  4. This is a judgment on an issue of faith or morals:
    We can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the
    pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian
    religion and injury to orthodox faith… We have therefore held a careful
    inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation
    with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman
    Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders,
    besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and
    in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not
    Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather
    are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against
    the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church.
  5. The definition is binding on all:
“By listing them, we decree and declare that all the Faithful of both sexes
must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain
all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic
major excommunication… We forbid each and every one of the Faithful of
either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be
incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or
defend them.”

Based on these characteristics, most pre-Conciliar Roman Catholics
agreed that Pope Leo’s bull was an Ex-Cathedra proclamation. The
problem is that this document clearly says: “we condemn, reprobate, and
reject completely each of these errors,” including the following that are
relevant both to the Orthodox – Catholic dialogue and to the issue of
infallibility:
17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences,
are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.
  1. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the Vicar of Christ
    over all the Churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in
    blessed Peter.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
 
nuntym said:
I wonder why you did not embolden this one:

"With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as **either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. **By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…

So thesis 33 is which: 1) heretical, 2) scandalous, 3) false, 4) offensive to pious ears, 5) seductive of simple minds, 6) against Catholic truth?

And to have major excommunication imposed on me, should I believe on just thesis 33, or on all of the theses listed?

EDIT: Also, so the Bible is wrong that God sometimes commanded capital punishment on some offenses on religious grounds (Ex. 22:18, 20; Deut. 13:5, 8–10, 15, 18:20)?

Yours in Christ through Mary,

Nuntym
Click to expand...
JP_Marat said:
Nunyym tells us the Jimmy Akin says that the Papal Bull Exsurge Domine isn’t really infallible. But it meets the criteria of Vatican I for an infallible ex cathedra teaching.
Here’s a contrary view

The dogma of Papal Infallibility was proclaimed by the papal bull … under the guarantee of Papal infallibility, and not only “de fide” definitions… …www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf

The first text to consider is the famous bull Exsurge Domine promulgated by Pope Leo X against Martin Luther.Let us carefully study the text of this bull and observe how all five
criteria are indeed fulfilled:
  1. The definition comes from the pope himself.
  2. He is acting as Pastor of all the Faithful:
    In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor” and
    “We forbid each and every one of the Faithful…
  3. He invokes his apostolic authority:
    When you were about to ascend to Your Father, You committed the care,
    rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant
    Church, to Peter, as the head and Your vicar and his successors. Rise,
    Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned
    above. In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine
    favor…
  4. This is a judgment on an issue of faith or morals:
    We can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the
    pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian
    religion and injury to orthodox faith… We have therefore held a careful
    inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation
    with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman
    Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders,
    besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and
    in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not
    Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather
    are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against
    the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church.
  5. The definition is binding on all:
“By listing them, we decree and declare that all the Faithful of both sexes
must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain
all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic
major excommunication… We forbid each and every one of the Faithful of
either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be
incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or
defend them.”

Based on these characteristics, most pre-Conciliar Roman Catholics
agreed that Pope Leo’s bull was an Ex-Cathedra proclamation. The
problem is that this document clearly says: “we condemn, reprobate, and
reject completely each of these errors,” including the following that are
relevant both to the Orthodox – Catholic dialogue and to the issue of
infallibility:
17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences,
are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.
  1. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the Vicar of Christ
    over all the Churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in
    blessed Peter.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
Click to expand...
Again, JP Marat, if you cannot even say with clarity whether thesis 33 is 1) heretical, 2) scandalous, 3) false, 4) offensive to pious ears, 5) seductive of simple minds, or 6) against Catholic truth, and whether major excommunication is merited by assention to this thesis only or assention to all the theses, then this is not a clear definition, and it fails the criteria of infallibility #1 as you posted above.

Most pre-Conciliar Roman Catholics is not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, mind you 😉
 
nuntym said:
Again, JP Marat, if you cannot even say with clarity whether thesis 33 is 1) heretical, 2) scandalous, 3) false, 4) offensive to pious ears, 5) seductive of simple minds, or 6) against Catholic truth, and whether major excommunication is merited by assention to this thesis only or assention to all the theses, then this is not a clear definition, and it fails the criteria of infallibility #1 as you posted above.

Most pre-Conciliar Roman Catholics is not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, mind you 😉
Click to expand...
RESPONSE:

What nonsense.😛 The Pope met the criteria for an ex cathedra statement. Thats’ all that matters. I’ll leavfe you and Jimmy to argue over the reason.
 
JP_Marat said:
RESPONSE:

What nonsense.😛 The Pope met the criteria for an ex cathedra statement. Thats’ all that matters. I’ll leavfe you and Jimmy to argue over the reason.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, are you telling all of us here that an incomplete, unclear definition, even by your admission by not answering my previous questions, can be an infallible doctrine? Whose belief and unbelief can mean a chance for eternal salvation or instant excommunication?

We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an **automatic major excommunication… **

Is that what you are telling us?

EDIT: Let me quote again the definition of papal infallibility by the document Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, fourth session:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

And I quote again the relatio (an official interpretation of the text that is presented to the council bishops by a man called the relator so that the bishops will know the official sense of the text on which they are voting) given by Bishop Vincent Gasser on the definition of “define” during the fourth session of Pastor Aeternus:

"the word ‘defines’ signifies that the pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff" (Gasser & O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility [Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1986], 74 n.).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top