V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Are you challenging me?
Do you have the authority of the Magisterium?
- Status
Do you have the authority of the Magisterium?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Lovely picture from “The Divine Comedy.” You’d do better to stick to the Catechism, however.
T
trth_skr
Guest
vern humphrey:
I thought I would get your (and anyone else’s) view on the following two specific issues:
If I agree with JPII’s private (unofficial statement), then three Popes are condemned for error (certainly at least one). If I disagree, three Popes maintain their current status, and one (JPII) ,made a private statement that conflicts with past authoritative statements.
I am not judging JPII, but I disagree with him. How would you handle this situation?
I realize that Fatima is not a dogma or even doctrine of the Church, but it is religous.
What do you say here?
Seriously pondering,
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Hi Vern:
I thought I would get your (and anyone else’s) view on the following two specific issues:
- JPII in a private speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Oct. 1992, said that Urban the VIII was wrong in condemning Galileo. Now that also by implication likely makes Paul V and Alexander VII wrong also (for anti-heliocentric, pro-geocentric views).
If I agree with JPII’s private (unofficial statement), then three Popes are condemned for error (certainly at least one). If I disagree, three Popes maintain their current status, and one (JPII) ,made a private statement that conflicts with past authoritative statements.
I am not judging JPII, but I disagree with him. How would you handle this situation?
- JPII has claimed that he made the consecration of Russia as requested by Mary. Mary asked specifically for Russia to be consecrated in union with the bishops of the world. Just giving him that the bishops were in union with him, then the main issue is that he consecrated the world to Mary. I know the Russia is in the world, but this is like substituting a sandwhich for bread at the eucharist, then saying, ‘well there is bread in the sandwhich’ (it’s an anology, I know there is solemn definition of matter for the eucharist).
I realize that Fatima is not a dogma or even doctrine of the Church, but it is religous.
What do you say here?
Seriously pondering,
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
The popes don’t have different ideas about truth, in essential matters (de fide dogmas of Catholicism), contrary opinions notwithstanding. John XXIII taught, “In essentials unity, in doubtful matters liberty, in all things charity.”
One can point to matters of liberty and see a variety of beliefs. That doesn’t disprove infallibility, as the doctrine of infallibility does not pertain to matters of liberty, but to de fide dogmas of Catholciism, which are the essentials which require unity in Catholic faith.
Not all traditionalists deny Vatican II and the validity of the normative liturgy of the Latin Rite. Those that do don’t prove our pope’s fallible, but only prove themselves mistaken.
Can you explain to me the scriptural justification for Sola Scriptura?
The absence of the charism of infallibility makes nonsense of Sacred Scripture. For example, Heb 13:17 states that we must obey our superiors. If our superiors were not given the gift of infallibility under certain circumstances, then they could teach error in such a way that they could proclaim it with absolute certainty (infallible) to be an essential part of the Christian faith.
For example, if our superiors declare that the Bible has specific books within it (as the Church did in the 4th century) and we must accept these books as Divinely inspired truth, then we must obey our superiors in accord with Heb 13:17. If we dissent with our superiors and declare that only 66 of the 73 books are inspired, then we are in sinful disobedience to Heb 13:17. On the other hand, if the superiors were not infallible in their declaration of what the Bible is, then our obedience to them would cause us to believe an error. It’s a catch 22 unless the gift of infallibility is a reality. It is an absurdity to place one’s absolute certaing faith in a fallible list of books, some of which might be inspired, some of which might not be..
If what our superiors proclaim as absolutely true were in fact wrong, our obedience in accord with Heb 13:17 would *force us to sin. Is that what God intended with Heb 13:17? *Thus, the only way that Scripture makes any sense whatsoever, is that our superiors are given guidance from God to teach in accord with His will when they declare an essential dogma of Christianity to be held by all the faithful.
The Divine gift of infallibility is the only way the Church can in fact be the “pillar and foundation of truth” which Holy Writ insists upon. God’s Word declares the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” and His Word has power, it ensures that which is declares.
God does indeed intend that we obey our superiors, so the charism of infallibility is a reality because He does not want us to follow his inspired Word, and by doing so, obey to our own destruction.
Yet, what would that body beleive in? You don’t even know infallibly what the essential teachings of Scripture are unless God guided His Church to an infallible proclamation on the matter.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
If you agree, three Popes are condemned for error?
You have to power to condemn Popes for error?
T
trth_skr
Guest
vern humphrey:
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
**I **am not condemning. All I am saying is that if JPII is correct in his private opinion, then at least 1, and most likely at least 3 Popes were wrong in official acts of the Church.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
B
barsapp
Guest
Inferno circle 6, heretics… I commented on CCC 819 on my post #131 saying that, according to 819, a heretic could be saved only because of the Catholic Church who besides her “visible confines” has also invisible ones… But heresy itself can never be a means of salvation, but of damnation. Beyond those visible and invisible confines you are going to find heretics, and those heretics are going to burn in hell.
With regard to 818, it only says that “one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities”. Only “with the sin of the separation”. But there is nothing said about other heretics sins.
An example: Yesterday “with a clear majority, the Synod (251 members) of the Church of Sweden voted to allow gay couples to have their partnership blessed in church”. Is this not heresy? Are these members of the Swedish synod “formal” or “material” heretics? Heresy leads to more heresy. They have no excuse. Those “invincible ignorant” heretics remind me the story of the Japanese soldier who didn’t know the war was over…
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
trth_skr said:
I’ve a question about this, anyway. Is a question of geocentricity a question of faith/morals/dogma/doctrine anyway? If it isn’t, then it doesn’t matter much, does it? No axe to grind here, I’m asking.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
trth_skr said:
In the Catholic Church, the bishops (including the Pope) are not bound or judged by the laity.
It may **seem **to you that there is a problem, but you aren’t authorized to make judgements on such matters. If it bothers you, ask your pastor. If his answer doesn’t clear things up for you, ask your Bishop.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
A) In the catechism, “invincible ignorance” is not contextually in the section on our relations with our fellow Christians who are not Catholic. I don’t think the Catechism intends to tie the two together.
B) Material and formal heresies are still different.
C) The Catechism (“sure norm,” etc.) says the following:
274 “*Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.” *
Now, granted, that’s still being saved through the Catholic Church, but they are still means of salvation, according to the Catechsim.
I personally do not believe that my protestant ancestors that were faithful to Christ are condemned to hell ipso facto, simply because they weren’t Catholic. I don’t think they were saved by “invincible ignorance,” but by faith in Christ, baptism, and lives of charity. I think that they are now Catholic and in Heaven.
B
barsapp
Guest
trth_skr said:
neither faith nor morals involved. does not count.
B
barsapp
Guest
I think we basically agree.
Still, any comments?: Yesterday “with a clear majority, the Synod (251 members) of the Church of Sweden voted to allow gay couples to have their partnership blessed in church”. Is this not heresy? Are these members of the Swedish synod “formal” or “material” heretics? Heresy leads to more heresy. They have no excuse.
Matt 15, 14 “Let them alone; they are blind guides (of the blind). If a blind person leads a blind person, both will fall into a pit."
T
trth_skr
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
***I **am not condemning. All I am saying is that if JPII is correct in his private opinion, then at least 1, and most likely at least 3 Popes were wrong in official acts of the Church.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com*
vern humphrey:
From what you are saying, “you aren’t authorized to make judgements on such matters”, Karl ought to just close this forum, since none of us are authorized to discuss 99% of what is discussed here (by your criteria).
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Originally Posted by trth_skr
***I **am not condemning. All I am saying is that if JPII is correct in his private opinion, then at least 1, and most likely at least 3 Popes were wrong in official acts of the Church.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com*
vern humphrey:
In my mind, and even better answer is that since JPII’s speech was a private matter, we can judge it *personally *in the context of what the Church has taught officially.
From what you are saying, “you aren’t authorized to make judgements on such matters”, Karl ought to just close this forum, since none of us are authorized to discuss 99% of what is discussed here (by your criteria).
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
The three Pope’s who made declarations concerning geocentrism felt it was a matter of faith and morals due to the fact that it hinged directly on inerrancy of Scripture, and unanomous consent of the Fathers.
See my three part series (plus a supplement) on geocenrtism on my blog. I discuss this issue.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
Disagree. See this post.
What about the Fatima issue (all)?
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
B
barsapp
Guest
Not at all. What you have to understand is that Papal Infallibility has to do with ex cathedra pronouncements (dogma and morals). In this case, the Pope must follow Scripture, Tradition and previous Magisterium. So, the Pope has not the freedom to teach anything contrary to Scripture, Tradition and previous Magisterium.
T
Trick
Guest
I really think it is great that you are more Catholic than the Pope.I really would like more guidance and instruction from you so I can get it right - thanks !What do i have to GAIN from saying the pope did such and such?
If anything, i would like more than anything for the popes to be staunch traditionalists, but, they are not. Anything but.
So called ecumenism is nothing more than downplaying the ultimate importance of converting to the Catholic faith. It is a plan by the freemasons that has successfully infiltrated the church. Just LOOK at some of the pictures from WYD, are they Catholic?
The Church has always taught that outside the Catholic faith there IS NO SALVATION. Therefore, explain to me, the strange revert on this position SINCE Vatican II. Can you?
Why does the Church in general now encourage people to stay as heretics? Calling them seperated brethren does not diminish the fact that they REJECT Catholic teaching. I could go so far as to say that all those who are not Catholic have never REALLY searched for the Truth. For, if they had, and wholly submitted to God’s will, he would not have allowed them to remain in schismatic and heretical sects.
The truth of the matter, is that the fundamental basis of the Catholic faith is its exclusivity. The idea of part - truths in other religions is irrelevant. They are still wrong.
Much as 20 + 20 = 40
20 + 20 = 39 is NEARLY correct, they have 39/40 parts of the Truth, but the end result is still wrong. It still bears no fruit and results in 0% being ultimately right. Hence, Catholic tradition has always been that outside the Church there is no salvation. How do you reconcile this belief with the Assisi interfaith call to prayer by JPII, and his lack of condemnation of the pagan and heretical faiths praying with him.
Now here is the dilemma, the idea of sedvacantism is illogical and wrong, it admits a failure of the Church and cannot be a legitimate option. However, the leader of my faith is calling us to love our “seperated brethren” and to resist converting them. I believe JPII signed a document at one meeting to agree not to try and convert the patriach of a schismatic sect(maybe someone can correct me on who it was, my memory is a little fuzzy?). This in itself is completely against all previous Catholic teaching. JPII SHOULD have been showing the man the error of his ways and fully admitting that to remain in the schismatic sect would mean eternal death. St Paul didnt seem to mind telling pagans about the reality of hell.
So thus you see my dilemma. I want to support the pope, but am confused when i see him promoting ideas that are a deviation from the traditional Catholic faith.
This is coupled by the MASSIVE controversy over the third secret of Fatima. If you go back and read some of the things said about the secret before it was revealed, they really, and i mean really dont add up to the one that was produced in 2000. In fact, this issue gets me more than the popes and their supposed wrongdoings.
But, lets keep the thread on topic.
Trick
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The fact that others agree means nothing. The laity do not exercise the magisterium. If you are confused or have questions about the issue you mention – go to your pastor or bishop.
And we get that authority, where?
That’s nonsense – we talk about a lot of things without presuming to judge the Pope.
If you don’t understand that, you need to just read some threads.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I think it’s great, too – but why didn’t these people who are more Catholic than the Pope invite me to their ordination ceremony?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gifI really think it is great that you are more Catholic than the Pope.I really would like more guidance and instruction from you so I can get it right - thanks !
Trick
B
barsapp
Guest
- Status