A Contradiction?

[adrift]

What else do you think Galileo was condemned for?

Disobedience.

 

[adrift]

adrift;5953492:

RESPONSE:

Those who are intellectually honest probably do.

Your not intellectually honest? Why am I not surprised.

 

[JP_Marat]

This is false. You also have to have valid matter. You can’t say the words of consecration over a cow and it becomes Jesus. The same with ordination. A women will not be a priestess just because a renegade bishop says a few words.

RESPONSE:

Let be more complete then:

“The form is the prayer of consecration asking for and conferring the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The matter is the laying on of hands by the bishop and the anointing of the hands.”

“Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the ‘gift of the Spirit,’ the ‘apostolic line.’ Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders.”

aboutcatholics.com/worship/holy_orders/

So a validly ordained bishop can confer the three degrees of the Sacrament of Holy orders by laying on of hands (matter) and saying the prayer of consecration (form).

The three degrees are deacon, priest, and bishop.

It can be documented that women were ordained to the diaconate. Thus they received Holy Orders. Now we are just arguing for that other two degrees.

 

[adrift]

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.

According to who? Nothing you have written shows a blunder. The blunder is yours in assuming that it is upon the face of it. I have already stated that the statement of burning heretics ( by the way it doesn’t say they must be burned only that they may be executed) is that capitol punishment is not against God’s law. Guess what? The Church still holds that position. So with all your claims that this and that is infallible you have not shown any error.
You have groped on to a list that is not accepted by the Church. It is one persons opinion. In none of those statement have you provide from the Pope that he INTENDS to speak infallibly. You still have not answered where is your proof that the Church officially taught

Do you believe that the earth doesn’t move and that the sun revolves around the earth because the Chuch interpreted scripture in that way?

 

[JP_Marat]

Disobedience.

Note: The question is what was Galileo condemned for. Adrift says “disobedience” but is in error as demonstrated by the document itself.

Galileo was condemned for heresy, specifically for holding **as possible **a view which contradicted the Church’s interpretation of scripture which required that the sun move around the earth and the earth be unmovable.

Read the actual words of the Condemnation and you should be able to see your error:

Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo, (June 22, 1633)

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents.

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE:

Let be more complete then:

“The form is the prayer of consecration asking for and conferring the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The matter is the laying on of hands by the bishop and the anointing of the hands.”

“Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the ‘gift of the Spirit,’ the ‘apostolic line.’ Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders.”

aboutcatholics.com/worship/holy_orders/

So a validly ordained bishop can confer the three degrees of the Sacrament of Holy orders by laying on of hands (matter) and saying the prayer of consecration (form).

The three degrees are deacon, priest, and bishop.

It can be documented that women were ordained to the diaconate. Thus they received Holy Orders. Now we are just arguing for that other two degrees.

Another misconception on your part. The matter is the person not the prayer. It is the laying on of the hands on the MAN cannot be a women because the matter is wrong as you are. Women were never ordained into the priesthood.

 

[adrift]

Note: The question is what was Galileo condemned for. Adrift says “disobedience” but is in error as demonstrated by the document itself.

You have the original document?

You hope that others will not take the time to search.
I think this is probably the site you got this from

Here is what you don’t quote

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office **for holding as true **the false doctrine

This is what Dr. Carrol documents in his book. Galileo was told not to teach Copernicanism as true. He did and that is why the condemnation due to disobedience.
Oh and since you owe him an e-mail why don’t you tell him that his research is wrong and you are right.

 

[JP_Marat]

Another misconception on your part. The matter is the person not the prayer. It is the laying on of the hands on the MAN cannot be a women because the matter is wrong as you are. Women were never ordained into the priesthood.

RESPONSE:

Your view differs, then, from the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

“With regard to the former, the received opinion maintains that the imposition of hands is the sole matter. This has been undoubtedly used from the beginning; to it, exclusively and directly, the conferring of grace is ascribed by St. Paul and many Fathers and councils.”

“If the simple imposition of hands be considered the sole matter, the words which belong to it are the form.”

APA citation. Ahaus, H. (1911).Holy Orders. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

 

[JP_Marat]

You have the original document?

You hope that others will not take the time to search.
I think this is probably the site you got this from

Here is what you don’t quote

This is what Dr. Carrol documents in his book. Galileo was told not to teach Copernicanism as true. He did and that is why the condemnation due to disobedience.
Oh and since you owe him an e-mail why don’t you tell him that his research is wrong and you are right.

RESPONSE:

No. Galileo held the opinion a probable that the earth moved about the sun.

You have to **read the words **in the Condemnation.

"…vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;

 

[JP_Marat]

According to who? Nothing you have written shows a blunder. The blunder is yours in assuming that it is upon the face of it. I have already stated that the statement of burning heretics ( by the way it doesn’t say they must be burned only that they may be executed) is that capitol punishment is not against God’s law. Guess what? The Church still holds that position. So with all your claims that this and that is infallible you have not shown any error.
You have groped on to a list that is not accepted by the Church. It is one persons opinion. In none of those statement have you provide from the Pope that he INTENDS to speak infallibly. You still have not answered where is your proof that the Church officially taught

RESPONSE:

Yes, it remains the **Church’s “infallible” teaching **that it is the will of God that heretics be burned at the stake. Exsurge domine has not been reversed. So, many Catholics are excommunicated for not believing so.

It is clear from the repeated papal statements of ED, that the Pope indended to teach infallibly.

"…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…

That’s rather pathetic, don’t you think?

Of course, since the Church no longer controls the government, nobody has been burned for heresy in recent memory, so that fine Catholic tradition has more or less been ignored.

Incidentally, Aquinas thought that the burning of heretics was a good idea too.

 

[nuntym]

RESPONSE:

Yes, it remains the **Church’s “infallible” teaching **that it is the will of God that heretics be burned at the stake. Exsurge domine has not been reversed. So, many Catholics are excommunicated for not believing so.

It is clear from the repeated papal statements of ED, that the Pope indended to teach infallibly.

"…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…

That’s rather pathetic, don’t you think?

Of course, since the Church no longer controls the government, nobody has been burned for heresy in recent memory, so that fine Catholic tradition has more or less been ignored.

Incidentally, Aquinas thought that the burning of heretics was a good idea too.

HA! I have refuted your argument, which you cannot answer and have instead ignored it.

Your not intellectually honest? Why am I not surprised.

Indeed.

 

[nuntym]

RESPONSE:

No. Galileo held the opinion a probable that the earth moved about the sun.

You have to **read the words **in the Condemnation.

"…vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;

OK, prove to us then, JP Marat, that this is an infallible pronouncement of faith. Remember to use the criteria of an infallible doctrine according to part 25 of Vatican IILumen Gentium, and of Vatican IPastor Aeternus, and/or as defined by Canon Law which combines the salient information from the two documents and I quote below:

[Code of Canon Law

BOOK III.

THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM)

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

 

[JP_Marat]

OK, prove to us then, JP Marat, that this is an infallible pronouncement of faith. Remember to use the criteria of an infallible doctrine according to Lumen Gentium part 25 of Vatican II, and Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, and/or as defined by Canon Law which combines the salient information from the two documents and I quote below:

[Code of Canon Law

BOOK III.

THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM)

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

RESPONSE:

Lets begin to review the errors you are presenting.

(1) First of all, it should be recognized that the Code of Canon Law is not itself infallible.

(2) Secondly, the Code of Canon Law changes.

(3) As an example you quoted in red a sentence in the 1983 edition with is not in the previous 1917 edition or any earlier one.

(3)“No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” This is nothing new, nor can it be. As an example, the three criteria of Vatican I for an infallible excathedra statement cannot be “reformed” ie. added to or modified in any way.Not even by a new code of CanonLaw or a new “infallible” teaching. The original infallible teaching is “irreformable” as written.

(4) Now lets look at the “decrees” of two ecumenical councils:

Council of Trent, Session 4.
“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;”

Council of the Vatican (Vatican I), Session 3, chapter 2, section 8.
"Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, **we renew that decree **and **declare its meaning **to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one,
which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this…"

There are two “decrees” of two ecumenical councils.

Galileo was judged to be a heretic for suggesting that the Church’s (constant) teaching based on **it’s erroneous interpretation of scripture **that the earth cannot be moved, and that the sun revolved around the earth might be in error.

"(You) have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably **after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; **

 

[nuntym]

RESPONSE:

Lets begin to review the errors you are presenting.

(1) First of all, it should be recognized that the Code of Canon Law is not itself infallible.

(2) Secondly, the Code of Canon Law changes.

(3) As an example you quoted in red a sentence in the 1983 edition with is not in the previous 1917 edition or any earlier one.

Which is why I said:

Remember to use the criteria of an infallible doctrine according to Lumen Gentium part 25 of Vatican II, and Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, and/or as defined by Canon Law which combines the salient information from the two documents and I quote below:

I quoted the current Canon Law because it will make your proving of whether or not the sentencing of Galileo by the Inquisition is an infallible proclamation of faith easier.

But if you don’t want to use it, fine by me. But you have to still use the criteria of infallibility of doctrine as defined by part 25 of Vatican IILumen Gentium, and of Vatican IPastor Aeternus.

(3)“No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” This is nothing new, nor can it be. As an example, the three criteria of Vatican I for an infallible excathedra statement cannot be “reformed” ie. added to or modified in any way.Not even by a new code of CanonLaw or a new “infallible” teaching. The original infallible teaching is “irreformable” as written.

I am sorry, i do not understand the sense of this post, can you please explain it?

(4) Now lets look at the “decrees” of two ecumenical councils:

Council of Trent, Session 4.
“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;”

Council of the Vatican (Vatican I), Session 3, chapter 2, section 8.
"Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, **we renew that decree **and **declare its meaning **to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one,
which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this…"

There are two “decrees” of two ecumenical councils.

Well you forgot something: isn’t it that the “true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture,” “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,” still a doctrine of faith? That means that an infallible interpretation of Scripture must still pass the criteria of infallible doctrine!

We know this to be true because there had been ecumenical councils which have infallibly defined the meaning of certain parts of Scripture. For example, from the Council of Trent, 22nd session, Chapter IX:

CANON II.–If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.

So, MP Marat, I ask you again:

Galileo was judged to be a heretic for suggesting that the Church’s (constant) teaching based on **it’s erroneous interpretation of scripture **that the earth cannot be moved, and that the sun revolved around the earth might be in error.

"(You) have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably **after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; **

OK, prove to us then, JP Marat, that this is an infallible pronouncement of faith. Remember to use the criteria of an infallible doctrine according to Lumen Gentium part 25 of Vatican II, and Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I

 

[JP_Marat]

HA! I have refuted your argument, which you cannot answer and have instead ignored it.

Indeed.

RESPONSE:

What “argument” are you claiming to have refuted? Curious readers would like to know.

Evidence, please.

JPM

 

[JP_Marat]

Originally Posted by JP Marat
This is nothing new, nor can it be. As an example, the three criteria of Vatican I for an infallible excathedra statement cannot be “reformed” ie. added to or modified in any way.Not even by a new code of CanonLaw or a new “infallible” teaching. The original infallible teaching is “irreformable” as written.

I am sorry, i do not understand the sense of this post, can you please explain it?<<

RESPONSE:

Sure.

Vatican I established the criteria for an papal ex cathedra infallible statement.

Vatican I’s infallible statement is irreformable (ie cannot be altered in any manner).

The New Code of Canon Law (1983) has added the statement:

(3)“No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.”

Any doctrine with meets all the criteria for a papal ex cathedra statement listed by Vatican I is then infallible. Nothing has changed. Just restated.

Simple.

 

[JP_Marat]

Well you forgot something: isn’t it that the “true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture,” “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,” still a doctrine of faith? That means that an infallible interpretation of Scripture must still pass the criteria of infallible doctrine! <<

RESPONSE:

No new infallible interpretation of scripture is necessary. Scripture is already infallibe by way of the universal ordinary magisterium, ie that which was taught at all time and in all places. Look it up.

We know this to be true because there had been ecumenical councils which have infallibly defined the meaning of certain parts of Scripture. For example, from the Council of Trent, 22nd session, Chapter IX:
CANON II.–If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema. <<

RESPONSE:

Again, read what the words say. “If any one saith, … let him be anathema.” That’s a condemnation for not believing. It isn’t making scripture itself infallible. Scripture already is. See above.

 

[JP_Marat]

Originally Posted by JP Marat
Galileo was judged to be a heretic for suggesting that the Church’s (constant) teaching based on it’s erroneous interpretation of scripture that the earth cannot be moved, and that the sun revolved around the earth might be in error.

"(You) have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;
Quote:

Originally Posted by nuntym
OK, prove to us then, JP Marat, that this is an infallible pronouncement of faith. Remember to use the criteria of an infallible doctrine according to Lumen Gentium part 25 of Vatican II, and Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I<<

RESPONSE:

Evidently you are still confused. It is the teachings of the councils that are an “infallible pronouncement of faith”.

Let’s look at the infallible decrees of the Council of Trent and the Council of the Vatican yet again:

Council of Trent, Session 4.
“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;”

Council of the Vatican (Vatican I), Session 3, chapter 2, section 8.
“Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one,
which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this…”

IT IS THESE THAT ARE INFALLIBLE:

Now lets look at the Church’s ERROR IN INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE:

“(You) have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;”<<<

The Church was in error in it’s misinterpretation of scripture. Nothing in the decrees of Trent or Vatican required any “infalliblle” pronouncement by the Church. A statement of its teaching fulfilled the law. Trent’s and VaticanI’s decrees being infallible are not “reformable” so a new requirement cannot be added.

 

[donsnow]

In Matthew 16:19 we read “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Back a few years ago the late Pope John Paul II stated the church did not have the authority to ordain women. Now I personally am ambivalent as to the whole womens ordination issue. What the church decides I abide with. But his Holiness’ statement seems to contradict Jesus’ words to Peter. I would be interested in hearing from someone who has knowledge of scripture what they think. I’m not a scripture expert in any way.

I see no contradiction, here. I consider the meaning of the two statements as mildly paradoxical. Which paradox was resolved during the first replies on page 1 of this thread.

In passing, I would also mention that any ordained woman would actually be a priestess. The connotation there reminds us of pagan religions which had priestesses. Christianity has nothing in common with paganism and should and has remained that way because of male ordination to clergy.

God is love,
Don

 

[nuntym]

RESPONSE:

What “argument” are you claiming to have refuted? Curious readers would like to know.

Evidence, please.

JPM

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

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

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.).