Vatican II clearly expanded and completed the teaching on infallibility that Vatican I started. If you have uncertainty in this area, read what Vatican I taught and compare it to Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium (specifically, para 12 and 25).I
What teachings of Vatican II, over and above what Vatican I taught on the subject, are required for papal infallibility to be engaged? There are only four conditions, and all four were given by Vatican I. If you disgree and think other conditions apply, please explain and provide your source.
Your replies are getting weaker and weaker and weaker. You are not at the point of using strawman arguments.I was not judging subjective guilt. Please, be more careful in your accusations.
It seems to me that you are the one judging here. Aren’t you saying that those who pray and profess the original Creed (which did not include the filioque) are heretical? The Catholic Church doesn’t. You seem to have a problem with it, though. Am I wrong?
Just to confirm, you agree that the filioque is a dogma of the faith, and that denying it makes a person a heretic, objectively speaking? And you also agree that the filioque was added to the Creed “reasonably and licitly” as the Council of Florence taught?Catholics should believe what the Catholic Church teaches, which I do.
That should have said, “you are now at the point of using strawman arguments”.Your replies are getting weaker and weaker and weaker. You are not at the point of using strawman arguments.
What I meant though, is that if anyone, absolutely anyone openly denied the church, and was ignorant of it … that is a one way ticket to hell unless they repent.I meant God will not cast them into hell for their ignorance–this doesn’t mean that God will not cast them into hell for some other reason, such as any sin they have committed. Some people think that anyone who is ignorant–let alone invincibly ignorant which can’t even be the case for 99.999% of the world’s population–will not go to hell just because they were ignorant.
I think that the E. Orthodox do not agree with that. They say it changes the faith, do they not?I’m saying the faith was not changed, since adding the filioque did not change the faith, bur more fully clarified it. .
Sounds like we agree then. Christians who pray the original Creed are not by that fact in heresy. thanks.Like I already said in a previous post, saying the Creed as it was originally formulated is not heretical. It is not heresy to say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. All agree on that. Therefore, if someone says the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, what they say is true. T
If the Catholic Church teaches that today, then yes I agree with it. Can you show me where that’s taught today? Not Florence, but today, by the Magisterium, as a circumstance of heresy? According to Canon Law?Just to confirm, you agree that the filioque is a dogma of the faith, and that denying it makes a person a heretic, objectively speaking?
i don;t think that you have stated the question and answer accurately.Your replies are getting weaker and weaker and weaker. You are not at the point of using strawman arguments.
Like I already said in a previous post, saying the Creed as it was originally formulated is not heretical. It is not heresy to say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. All agree on that. Therefore, if someone says the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, what they say is true. The HERESY is when someone denies that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son. So, to answer your last question: Yes, you are wrong.
The reason I said it could be a sin of omission for a Catholic to omit the filioque is because doing so could confirm the Orthodox in their error. The reason I say that is because, although the Council of Florence allowed the Orthodox to continue to say the Creed without the filioque, they were not permitted to deny the filioque. Today they DO deny the filioque. Therefore, if a high ranking Prelate attended a Mass with the Orthodox heretics and used their version of the Creed, it could be a sin of ommission since they now deny that article of faith. Since all know the Orthodox deny that dogma of the faith, it would seem to me that a high ranking Churchmen would have the duty, out of charity, to profess the truth, and not sweep it under the rug so as not to offend a heretic. It would be like a Prelate during the Arian crisis avoiding the dogma of the Christ’s Devinity so as not to offend the Arians. Like I said, I don’t have the ability to judge subjective guilt, but if I personally did such a think I would confess it.
Just to confirm, you agree that the filioque is a dogma of the faith, and that denying it makes a person a heretic, objectively speaking? And you also agree that the filioque was added to the Creed “reasonably and licitly” as the Council of Florence taught?
Unfortunately, I am unable to provide you with a quote from February 10, 2010 where the Pope reiterates what the Council of Florence and the Council of Lyon taught. And if I was able to locate a quote from yesterday, in which the Pope reiterated what these Councils taught on this point, why would you accept it? After all, it was not said TODAY, but yesterday (the past, when nothing could be trusted); and based on your reasoning, doctrinal teachings of the Church can change with the passing of time. And since yesterday is an earlier time, why would you accept a statement from that past? And if you *would *accept a statement from yesterday (the past), why would you not also accept a dogmatic statement from the Council of Florence, or Lyon (also form the past)? Is something more true just because it is stated closer to a point in time that you happen to live?If the Catholic Church teaches that today, then yes I agree with it. Can you show me where that’s taught today? Not Florence, but today, by the Magisterium, as a circumstance of heresy? According to Canon Law?
Yes, I agree with that. They are only in heresy if they deny the filioque.Sounds like we agree then. Christians who pray the original Creed are not by that fact in heresy. thanks.
But that statement is not from today. It is from thousands of days ago. Therefore, if we reasoning according to some people in this thread, we can’t trust it. After all, it is from the past, and we are only required to accept what is taught today, February 10, 2010.i don;t think that you have stated the question and answer accurately.
I believe that the correct position and teaching on the filioque as it is taught and understood today by the Catholic Church is given in the following USCCB document:
usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml
This document has been published by the United States Bishops and has not been retracted.But that statement is not from today. It is from thousands of days ago. Therefore, if we reasoning according to some people in this thread, we can’t trust it. After all, it is from the past, and we are only required to accept what is taught today, February 10, 2010.
The doctrinal teachings of the Church do not change. We don’t need a new statment every day, or every year, or every decade affirming the same thing. What is taught at a Council becomes a part of the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, and as such, must be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith - even by the Bishops. To even doubt such a doctrinal teaching is to fall into heesy. See post 105.
The missalette at Mass says that Orthodox are allowed to receive Holy Communion.So, since the Orthodox and protestants, restorationalists, and the non-trinitarian especially, since they all deny the Filioque…well then…that makes them heretical and outside the church, and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus imeans in communion with the church with the exception of the baptism of the desire.
Usually it also says that the members of other Churches, even when welcome to receive communion the Catholic Church, should follow the disciplines of their own Churches.The missalette at Mass says that Orthodox are allowed to receive Holy Communion.
Yes, but strictly speaking this definition of heresy per Canon Law applies to those bound by Canon Law. Which does not include Orthodox.Unfortunately, I am unable to provide you with a quote from February 10, 2010 where the Pope reiterates what the Council of Florence and the Council of Lyon taught. And if I was able to locate a quote from yesterday, in which the Pope reiterated what these Councils taught on this point, why would you accept it? After all, it was not said TODAY, but yesterday (the past, when nothing could be trusted); and based on your reasoning, doctrinal teachings of the Church can change with the passing of time. And since yesterday is an earlier time, why would you accept a statement from that past? And if you *would *accept a statement from yesterday (the past), why would you not also accept a dogmatic statement from the Council of Florence, or Lyon (also form the past)? Is something more true just because it is stated closer to a point in time that you happen to live?
The Church does not change doctrinal teachings from Church Councils. The filioque is a doctrinal teaching from multiple councils that can never and will never change. We don’t need a new Papal statement every day of the year telling us that Jesus is God, for example, or that He has two intellects and two wills (human and divine). These points were defined many centuries ago (long before the filioque), and, believe it or not, they are just as true today as they were then.
What it comes down to is this: Either we accept what the Church teaches or we don’t; and if someone doesn’t, they will use every trick in the book to justify rejecting it.
Here’s a quote from the new Catechis. It’s not from today, but it is pretty recent.
CCC #246: "The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. **The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: **“The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. **He proceeds eternally from both **as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son”.
Here’s what canon law says about heresy:
Can. 750 **Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith **which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
The filioque meets falls into the category of canon 750 as being something that must be believed by "divine and Catholic faith. Canon 751 says it is heresy to even *doubt *something that is to believe by Divine and Catholic faith. Therefore we don’t need a brand new statement from the Pope on February 10, 2010 telling us what we already know.
Nonsense. Doctrines change all the time in their presentation, understanding, phrasing, etc.But that statement is not from today. It is from thousands of days ago. Therefore, if we reasoning according to some people in this thread, we can’t trust it. After all, it is from the past, and we are only required to accept what is taught today, February 10, 2010.
The doctrinal teachings of the Church do not change. We don’t need a new statment every day, or every year, or every decade affirming the same thing. What is taught at a Council becomes a part of the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, and as such, must be believed by Divine and Catholic Faith - even by the Bishops. To even doubt such a doctrinal teaching is to fall into heesy. See post 105.
For this deposit of faith, or truths which are contained in our time-honored teaching is one thing; the manner in which these truths are set forth (with their meaning preserved intact) is something else.