New ‘Declaration of Truths’ Affirms Key Church Teachings

[Malcolm]

The right meaning of the expressions ‘living tradition,’ ‘living Magisterium,’ ‘hermeneutic of continuity,’ and ‘development of doctrine’ includes the truth that whatever new insights may be
expressed regarding the deposit of faith, nevertheless they cannot be contrary to what the Church has always proposed in the same dogma, in the same sense, and in the same meaning (see First
Vatican Council, Dei Filius, sess. 3, c. 4: “in eodem dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia”).

If anyone (including the Pope) espouses any doctrines which are “contrary to what the Church has always proposed in the same dogma, in the same sense, and in the same meaning” then they are simply wrong - aren’t they ?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Am I a hopeless lost, ignorant liberal who doesn’t recognise Burke and co as the new church? If so, I am prepared to die on that hill with Pope Francis.

Burke (et al) are expressing solidarity with the doctrines of the old church irrespective of present personalities or preferences. The only new church will be one led from the very top into the great apostasy.

I would be very careful which one you choose to die for.

I will be following the official Magisterium to the end of my days, otherwise my Catholic faith is meaningless.

 

[TMC]

If anyone (including the Pope) espouses any doctrines which are “ contrary to what the Church has always proposed in the same dogma, in the same sense, and in the same meaning ” then they are simply wrong - aren’t they ?

This is actually a very interesting and difficult question. First we have to figure out what “wrong” would mean. Presumably it would not be enough that one disagrees with the doctrinal development. Most Catholics disagree with some Church teaching or other, but that does not necessarily mean that it is “wrong” - at least not the way I think you mean it. Put another way, a Catholic can believe the Church is mistaken in a particular teachings without believing the teaching so illegitimate that it calls the teaching authority of the proponent of the teaching into question. So I take wrong in this context to mean that the teaching is a sufficient deviation from past teaching that a Catholic could not reasonably accept it as a doctrinal development.

By that standard, (or something like it) it is hard to say what would be “wrong.” The Church has made fairly large and important changes to past teachings, and had those teachings broadly accepted as legitimate (even if some few quibble with the details). In most cases, the Church has been able to explain how the development fits into the broader tradition, and how it is consistent with the core tenets of the faith. The most common examples that people cite for this are EENS, usury, slavery, and so forth.

I do not see any of the current developments in doctrine as deviating so broadly from past teachings as to call the teaching authority into question, and find each of them sufficiently explained by the Magisterium. None are more sharp a reversal than say, usury, and are at least as well explained.

That is my opinion. If you disagree, I would welcome learning why.

 

[Emeraldlady]

The right meaning of the expressions ‘living tradition,’ ‘living Magisterium,’ ‘hermeneutic of continuity,’ and ‘development of doctrine’ includes the truth that whatever new insights may be
expressed regarding the deposit of faith, nevertheless they cannot be contrary to what the Church has always proposed in the same dogma, in the same sense, and in the same meaning (see First
Vatican Council, Dei Filius, sess. 3, c. 4: “in eodem dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia”).

This is a foreign concept to me. My faith is based totally in the truth that Christ will never abandon his Church. We can never fail or be deluded by trusting in the authority of the Rock. Even the holy early Fathers who functioned and contributed to doctrine in a way that we now have the Magisterium, ever set themselves up as an ‘alternative’ teacher of the people the way Burke is doing.

I have a theory that Burke is appealing to a weak area in some peoples faith that may be due to being converts and reverts who have not always accepted Christ promise and the meaning of the Rock. Not sure but a lot of people giving their faith to his authority over the Popes seem to be converts or reverts?

 

[Malcolm]

I have a theory that Burke is appealing to a weak area in some peoples faith that may be due to being converts and reverts who have not always accepted Christ promise and the meaning of the Rock. Not sure but a lot of people giving their faith to his authority over the Popes seem to be converts or reverts?

I have a theory ad hominen arguments against Cardinal Burke aren’t actually bolstered by ad hominem arguments against reverts, their weak faith, etc.

The Rock you refer to must include the constant teaching of the church and that is what Burke is defending.

I understand it’s frightening to consider our church really might be in the worst crisis of its history but papolatry isn’t the right principle to “circle the wagons around” - the deposit of faith and what the church has always taught is .

 

[sallybutler]

On the subject of marriage, am I correct in understanding that the good Cardinal would support not allowing for civil second marriages if one’s original spouse was still alive and this should apply to non-Catholics also? It seemed as if he was saying that civil marriage must follow all the same laws as Catholic marriage.

 

[IslesRoo]

Ironically, I’m finding most of the “traditional” bloggers who lead the anti Francis charge, are usually former Protestants. They read and defend Church documents the way a Protestant treats scripture.

I’m not saying this is good or bad, just an observation from someone who reads it all and can’t decide what camp I fall in to.

 

[CilladeRoma]

I have a theory ad hominen arguments against Cardinal Burke aren’t actually bolstered by ad hominem arguments against reverts, their weak faith, etc.

There is no ad hominen arguments or attacks against +Burke in this thread. In fact, he is being treated exactly the way he is treating Pope Francis.

If he wants to set himself up as an alternate Magisterium, then he is entitled to the same respect he is giving the actual current Pontiff.

 

[Malcolm]

They are undermining the authority of the Holy Father and using their “cult of personality” to sow discord among the faithful.

I think Burke (et al) are defending the faith against those who are trying to improve it. The only “cult of personality” are those seemingly prepared to unquestioningly follow absolutely anything (even heresy) provided it comes from the right mouth.

 

[CilladeRoma]

So, are you accusing Pope Francis of heresy?

 

[Malcolm]

So, are you accusing Pope Francis of heresy?

I accused papolatrists of being prepared to support anything including heresy.

 

[sallybutler]

Generally, papalist (please note spelling) is used to denigrate and insult Catholics.

As a Catholic, I am a proud papalist.

 

[CilladeRoma]

As am I.
Francis sits in the Chair of St. Peter, not Cardinal Burke. My loyalty will always be with the Holy Father, whomever he may be.

 

[JimG]

I read Karl Keating’s book “The Francis Feud” and found it to be a pretty good analysis of the controversy over the current pope.

Loading…

www.ncregister.com

 

[TMC]

I think Burke (et al) are defending the faith against those who are trying to improve it. The only “cult of personality” are those seemingly prepared to unquestioningly follow absolutely anything (even heresy) provided it comes from the right mouth.

You have made a number of statements suggesting that you think that Cdr Burke’s view of Catholic doctrine is superior, or more correct, or more traditional than the version of Catholic doctrine currently being presented by the Magisterium. Can you give specific examples of where Catholic teaching has gone astray, and why you think that?

 

[KMG]

Anyone who wants an education in the very real error of papolatry need but read this thread.

 

[Malcolm]

Can you give specific examples of where Catholic teaching has gone astray, and why you think that?

Read the Declaration of Truths and ask yourself what might the Magisterium have said contrary to that? That will give you the short list of “where Catholic teaching has gone astray”.

Why do I think this ? Because it’s impossible for me not to see which of the two is innovating and which is reiterating what the church has always taught.

In fact matters have now become so obvious I’m beginning to suspect people who claim to not understand it or waffle about it or prevaricate by some means or other.

 

[TMC]

Read the Declaration of Truths and ask yourself what might the Magisterium have said contrary to that? That will give you the short list of “where Catholic teaching has gone astray”.

Why do I think this ? Because it’s impossible for me not to see which of the two is innovating and which is reiterating what the church has always taught.

In fact matters have now become so obvious I’m beginning to suspect people who claim to not understand it or waffle about it or prevaricate by some means or other.

What is this a guessing game? If you are going to assert that the Church has drifted into heresy, the least you should do is say what teachings you are concerned about. Yes, I could guess what you are talking about, but why not just explain your actual concerns?

 

[Malcolm]

why not just explain your actual concerns

What is this a court trial?

I don’t have the specific references at my fingertips as to which Mexican journalist the Pope said this or that to but suffice it to say I consider the hand writing is now on the wall for any reasonably informed Catholic to see - unless of course they wilfully refuse to.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

I have a theory that Burke is appealing to a weak area in some peoples faith that may be due to being converts and reverts who have not always accepted Christ promise and the meaning of the Rock. Not sure but a lot of people giving their faith to his authority over the Popes seem to be converts or reverts?

I have a theory ad hominen arguments against Cardinal Burke aren’t actually bolstered by ad hominem arguments against reverts, their weak faith, etc.

The Rock you refer to must include the constant teaching of the church and that is what Burke is defending.

I understand it’s frightening to consider our church really might be in the worst crisis of its history but papolatry isn’t the right principle to “circle the wagons around” - the deposit of faith and what the church has always taught is .

Do you realise there is no such teaching of heresy called ‘papolatry’? It is derived from the Protestant definition of papistry and goes in hand with their coining of ‘mariolatry’. They reject that the authority given to the Pope and the Mother of Jesus , with the guaranteed protection of the Holy Spirit, is real.