HELP! Confused about the Trinity

[Vico]

Why are “the legality of a Pope or of a General Council, or the fact of the Roman episcopate of St. Peter”, which are so essentially as to be called dogmatic facts, on the same level with something that hasn’t been defined. It’s a pertinent question since traditionalist who don’t like some of the Pope’s choices for sainthood have brought up the issue and it needs to be settled. Dogmatic fact means the Church can’t function as in institution that defines dogma without it. That 's all I was trying to point out

Thematters that must be assented to by the faithful are either proposed as divinely revealed or set forth definitively.

Those “§ 6. Catholic Truths” are not grades of certainty but categories of teaching that are decided upon through the teaching authority of the Church on faith and morals. They are “truths and facts which are a **consequence **of the teaching of Revelation or a presupposition of it”: 1) Theological Conclusions 2) Dogmatic Facts 3) Truths of Reason.

 

[thinkandmull]

How is canonizations a “consequence of the teaching of Revelation”?

 

[thinkandmull]

1) Theological Conclusions **2) **Dogmatic Facts

So they are separate categories. Canonization is pious practice but someone theologians want to present to Rome for a final decision as a doctrine

 

[Vico]

How is canonizations a “consequence of the teaching of Revelation”?

You missed this in the quote “or a presupposition of it”.

The dogma of faith defines the practice in the Church of the faithful veneration of saints:

• It is permissible and profitable to venerate the Saints in Heaven, and to invoke their intercession.

So there are saints canonized and they are suitable for veneration.

 

[Vico]

1) Theological Conclusions **2) **Dogmatic Facts

So they are separate categories. Canonization is pious practice but someone theologians want to present to Rome for a final decision as a doctrine

It took hundreds of years (from about 1595) for that to happen with the Immaculate Conception, which the Franciscans (and Jesuits) (for it) and Dominicans (against it) argued over incessantly.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Why would God come down to reveal to us just things that we can know by the light of natural reason alone? Even things like God’s existence can be known just through reason. Aristotle for instance through reason was able to know God’s existence. It would be a waste for God to become Incarnate just to tell you how to park your car or show you how to save money on life insurance. In order for Revelation from God to be truly revealing God would need to show us something we would never arrive at through natural reason. This is what we would expect if it was truly from God. Thus, the Trinity is not something we would naturally deduce about God. If man came up with it then it would be far easier to be understood by man. But since it comes from God it remains a mystery.

This is something that escaped many of the Jews in Jesus’ time on earth. Jesus coming to die on a Cross and rise again. Jesus was not expected. He was too big for them. But when God is made flesh we have to expect more than worldly concerns like just saving particular Jews from the Romans. The whole world is affected when God comes. Because he has salvation and restoration in mind for all.

 

[thinkandmull]

Something is either a Theological Conclusions or a Dogmatic Fact. Since telling the faithful someone is in heaven is not essential for the life of the Church in Dogmatic matters, you would have to argue that it is not among “dogmatic facts” as was said earlier, but a theological conclusion. However, with the screening process lowered so far in the past 40 years, some are questioning whether canonizations are infallible, or at least whether beatifications are. Rome needs to speak, and then truly it could be a Dogma

 

[davidv]

Something is either a Theological Conclusions or a Dogmatic Fact.

Really? Why are these the only two categories of “somethings”? By the way what are “somethings”?

Since telling the faithful someone is in heaven is not essential for the life of the Church in Dogmatic matters, you would have to argue that it is not among “dogmatic facts” as was said earlier, but a theological conclusion. However, with the screening process lowered so far in the past 40 years, some are questioning whether canonizations are infallible, or at least whether beatifications are. Rome needs to speak, and then truly it could be a Dogma

 

[Vico]

Really? Why are these the only two categories of “somethings”? By the way what are “somethings”?

Something is either a Theological Conclusions or a Dogmatic Fact. Since telling the faithful someone is in heaven is not essential for the life of the Church in Dogmatic matters, you would have to argue that it is not among “dogmatic facts” as was said earlier, but a theological conclusion. However, with the screening process lowered so far in the past 40 years, some are questioning whether canonizations are infallible, or at least whether beatifications are. Rome needs to speak, and then truly it could be a Dogma

These things are proposed for belief by the Magisterium. The somethings are Catholic Truths in three categories, per Ludwig Ott:

1. Theological Conclusions
2. Dogmatic Facts
3. Truths of Reason.

 

[davidv]

These things are proposed for belief by the Magisterium. The somethings are Catholic Truths in three categories, per Ludwig Ott:

1. Theological Conclusions
2. Dogmatic Facts
3. Truths of Reason.

Where does revelation fit in these categories?

 

[Vico]

Where does revelation fit in these categories?

In Theological Conclusions one or both of the premises must be revelation. The other two categories are not revelation but intrinsically connected to revealed truths.

 

[Vico]

Something is either a Theological Conclusions or a Dogmatic Fact. Since telling the faithful someone is in heaven is not essential for the life of the Church in Dogmatic matters, you would have to argue that it is not among “dogmatic facts” as was said earlier, but a theological conclusion. However, with the screening process lowered so far in the past 40 years, some are questioning whether canonizations are infallible, or at least whether beatifications are. Rome needs to speak, and then truly it could be a Dogma

Forgot to note in the other post to this, that for Theological Conclusions one or two of the premises must be revealed truth.

 

[davidv]

In Theological Conclusions one or both of the premises must be revelation. The other two categories are not revelation but intrinsically connected to revealed truths.

How is a revealed truth different than a dogmatic truth? And, if they are different, why isn’t there a fourth category of Catholic Truth, revealed truth?

 

[thinkandmull]

Theological conclusions are drawn from revealed truths (biblical or traditional). Dogmatic Facts refer to the legality of a pontificate or council. It contradicts the position of sedevacantists for example. I don’t know why canonizations would be placed in that category, since it’s a different topic. The legality of a papacy must be assumed before there can be a dogmatic definition that canonizations, beatification, or making of a venerable are infallible

 

[Vico]

How is a revealed truth different than a dogmatic truth? And, if they are different, why isn’t there a fourth category of Catholic Truth, revealed truth?

There is, apart from Catholic Truths, which is: ** Divine Truths or Divine Doctrines of Revelation **

Ludwig Ott gives that in section 6:

Those doctrines and truths defined by the Church not as immediately revealed but as intrinsically connected with the truths of Revelation so that their denial would undermine the revealed truths are called Catholic Truths (veritates catholicae) or Ecclesiastical Teachings (doctrinae ecclesiasticae) to distinguish them from the Divine Truths or Divine Doctrines of Revelation (veritates vel doctrinae divinae).

 

[Vico]

Theological conclusions are drawn from revealed truths (biblical or traditional). Dogmatic Facts refer to the legality of a pontificate or council. It contradicts the position of sedevacantists for example. I don’t know why canonizations would be placed in that category, since it’s a different topic. The legality of a papacy must be assumed before there can be a dogmatic definition that canonizations, beatification, or making of a venerable are infallible

What Ludwig Ott wrote of Dogmatic Facts is:
By these are understood historic facts, which are not revealed, but which are intrinsically connected with revealed truth.

 

[thinkandmull]

It’s strange to use the word dogma in reference to the Church saying who is in heaven, especially since this hasn’t been defined. Ambiguity in language in the Church and among theologians has bothered me for awhile. Is something that Trent taught that is explicitly in the Bible more formal than one that isn’t? Does the Church have to quote the verse, or at least say it’s explicitly in the Bible? Is something stated by Vatican II that is explicitly in the Bible higher therefore in formality than something from Trent that is not irrefutably in the Bible?

 

[Vico]

It’s strange to use the word dogma in reference to the Church saying who is in heaven, especially since this hasn’t been defined. Ambiguity in language in the Church and among theologians has bothered me for awhile. Is something that Trent taught that is explicitly in the Bible more formal than one that isn’t? Does the Church have to quote the verse, or at least say it’s explicitly in the Bible? Is something stated by Vatican II that is explicitly in the Bible higher therefore in formality than something from Trent that is not irrefutably in the Bible?

We are obliged to adherence, once the Magisterium exercises authority, for example, in the Liturgy, to venerate certain saints. So sometimes this is “religious obedience of intellect and will,” not the assent of faith.

Catechism

The dogmas of the faith
88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

At Vatican I, Cardinal Gasser replied:

But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?

James T. O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I, Boston, St. Paul Editions, 1986, pp. 117-120.

 

[thinkandmull]

“thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments” is probably a huge exaggeration.

The Catechism is not clear in paragraph 88. It says

1. defined dogmas are infallible decrees from Revelation.
2. Catholic truths are those definitive proposed that have truths have a necessary connection with these.

Paul Vi said that there were no dogmatic definitions at Vatican II, and yet there were two Dogmatic Constitutions. How does this make sense? Is a “Catholic truth” from Trent not a dogma? Did Vatican II not issue dogma *because *they didn’t state it formally enough, or because what it taught was only connected to Revelation? Since the Church doesn’t tell us, how do we know that something is not truly in Tradition, instead of just having a necessary connection? Writers switch there meanings a lot when they speak on these matters, while I don’t think Rome has been clear enough in her canon laws about this.

 

[davidv]

“thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments” is probably a huge exaggeration.

The Catechism is not clear in paragraph 88. It says

1. defined dogmas are infallible decrees from Revelation.
2. Catholic truths are those definitive proposed that have truths have a necessary connection with these.

Paul Vi said that there were no dogmatic definitions at Vatican II, and yet there were two Dogmatic Constitutions. How does this make sense?

Do you think a dogmatic definition and a dogmatic constitution are the same? Why?

Is a “Catholic truth” from Trent not a dogma? Did Vatican II not issue dogma *because *they didn’t state it formally enough, or because what it taught was only connected to Revelation? Since the Church doesn’t tell us, how do we know that something is not truly in Tradition, instead of just having a necessary connection? Writers switch there meanings a lot when they speak on these matters, while I don’t think Rome has been clear enough in her canon laws about this.