M
- Status
A
Abu
Guest
You are right and mardukm now agrees!!!
But unfortunately mardukm expresses hopeless confusion for in mardukm #97 he asserts:
“the Pope has PRIORLY determined (and MUST priorly determine) that he is actually in agreement with the sensus fidei and the universal ordinary Magisterium before making the decree.
The Pope must make a serious effort to determine that he is not contradicting the infallible Faith of the sensus fidei nor the infallible teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium before he is even capable of pronouncing an ex cathedra decree.”
Now it should be obvious that “the Pope” does not have to be “in agreement with the sensus fidei ”nor “not contradicting the infallible faith of the sensus fidei”, for:
“The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, **aroused and sustained by the Spirit of Truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God **(cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, Vatican II, my emphasis]
Thus the faithful’s consent is predicated on obeying the teaching of the Magisterium.
Perhaps he has learned something at last!
M
MrSnaith
Guest
I would argue, Abu, that both positions are correct. Here’s the nuance. The Pope’s ex cathedra definitions are not reliant on the sensus fidei for infallibility, but such definitions must be in agreement with the sensus fidei, otherwise the sensus fidei wouldn’t be what it is. Both the sensus fidei and the infallible charism of the Petrine office have the same source, the Holy Spirit, and as such must be in agreement.
Therefore, it is obligatory for the Pope to ascertain what the sensus fidei is in order to properly pronounce infallible doctrine. This is because the sensus fidei does not consist merely of the visible body of the Church at that time, but actually consists of all members of the Faithful throughout the whole of history, including past Popes.
The Magesterium is the authoritative teaching, and the sensus fidei is the consent to that teaching. Since no new doctrines are actually formulated, but only old doctrine is further developed and more clearly defined, the sensus fidei already contains all true doctrine. Therefore, in more clearly defining doctrine through infallible declarations, the Pope must already consent to the Magesterium, and is therefore already a member of the sensus fidei by that consent.
The clear point, then, is that Magesterium, sensus fidei, and Petrine infallibility are inseparable, for they are of the same Spirit, who is inseparable.
M
mardukm
Guest
Amazing. First you pretend that the Pope does not have to be in agreement with the sensus fidei (which is infallible, according to the teaching of the Church), and then you provide a quote that asserts the bishops (including the Pope) indeed are part of the sensus fidei. So the Pope does not have to be in agreement with himself in his ex cathedra decree! WOW!. You’ve really outdone yourself! Who here can argue with that kind of – umm – “logic.”
Will keep praying for you.
Blessings
Will keep praying for you.
Blessings
M
MrSnaith
Guest
I would just like to say to members of both sides of this debate, that while I have enjoyed the passion with which it has been engaged, I would caution you to remember Charity for your brothers in Faith. I have been simultaneously delighted by the sheer knowledge and intelligence by which the positions have been presented and defended, and disheartened by the personal insults that have passed back and forth, subtle and implicative though they may be. Let us please remember the we are each Faithful adherents our Lord, though our understanding may be insufficient. We are all trying to attain to His glory and truth. Let’s not insult that.
M
MilesVitae
Guest
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother MrSnaith,
Well said. The position being espoused by Abu is part of the reason that has separated the SSPX from the Catholic Church. It is also part of the reason that many refuse to join the Catholic communion. At some point, enough is enough. It’s got to be exposed that this sola papa error is an aberration. If one takes the time to study the actual debates that went on at V1, one can only agree that Abu’s position on the papacy is indeed an aberration from the teaching of the Catholic Church.
We have documents from the Seven Ecum Councils (thanks to the scholarship of Protestants), and we study the Acts diligently to have a better grasp of the minds of the Fathers of those Councils, and get a better understanding of their Decrees. I don’t understand why people (Catholics and especially non-Catholics) take the Decrees of V1 on their own and pretend that the Acts behind those decrees are unimportant. It’s a very inconsistent method of approaching the Faith.
I figure some jocularity is preferable to blatant rudeness.
Your exhortations are welcome, nonetheless.
Blessings
Well said. The position being espoused by Abu is part of the reason that has separated the SSPX from the Catholic Church. It is also part of the reason that many refuse to join the Catholic communion. At some point, enough is enough. It’s got to be exposed that this sola papa error is an aberration. If one takes the time to study the actual debates that went on at V1, one can only agree that Abu’s position on the papacy is indeed an aberration from the teaching of the Catholic Church.
We have documents from the Seven Ecum Councils (thanks to the scholarship of Protestants), and we study the Acts diligently to have a better grasp of the minds of the Fathers of those Councils, and get a better understanding of their Decrees. I don’t understand why people (Catholics and especially non-Catholics) take the Decrees of V1 on their own and pretend that the Acts behind those decrees are unimportant. It’s a very inconsistent method of approaching the Faith.
I figure some jocularity is preferable to blatant rudeness.
Your exhortations are welcome, nonetheless.
Blessings
M
mardukm
Guest
That is a good distinction. I did not use the terms “interiorly” and 'exteriorly" since I conceive of those as applying to the individual, instead of corporately. But you grasped the proper gist of what I meant. Thank you.
Blessings
Blessings
M
MrSnaith
Guest
You don’t have to explain yourself to me, Mardukm. I am fully in agreement with you that error needs to be identified and eliminated. I think Abu would agree with that as well.Dear brother MrSnaith,
Well said. The position being espoused by Abu is part of the reason that has separated the SSPX from the Catholic Church. It is also part of the reason that many refuse to join the Catholic communion. At some point, enough is enough. It’s got to be exposed that this sola papa error is an aberration. If one takes the time to study the actual debates that went on at V1, one can only agree that Abu’s position on the papacy is indeed an aberration from the teaching of the Catholic Church.
We have documents from the Seven Ecum Councils (thanks to the scholarship of Protestants), and we study the Acts diligently to have a better grasp of the minds of the Fathers of those Councils, and get a better understanding of their Decrees. I don’t understand why people (Catholics and especially non-Catholics) take the Decrees of V1 on their own and pretend that the Acts behind those decrees are unimportant. It’s a very inconsistent method of approaching the Faith.
I figure some jocularity is preferable to blatant rudeness.
Your exhortations are welcome, nonetheless.
Blessings
My objective here, in this discussion, has been twofold: to gain a deeper understanding of this doctrine, and help bridge the gap of understanding between two sides of a very well-thought out debate. It is for both of these reasons that I called for a clarification of definitions. The amount of what you both agree on is heartening, and you should realize this.
You both agree that the charism of infallibility is unique to the Petrine office, relative to any other office in the Church. In this sense, the Pope is, and will always be, the final, official voice of the Church.
You both agree that the charism of infallibility has also been granted to the Church as a whole, and that each member is also infallible insofar as they adhere to the teachings of the Magesterium, both interiorly and in dialogue with others.
You both certainly agree with the documents of the Councils, which you both so feverishly quote.
So what’s the problem? The problem lies in the nuance of interpretation, not only of what those councils say, but also of what each other of you say. Therefore, in order to come to a correct and proper understanding of the true doctrine, it is insufficient to merely quote the councils. It is also insufficient to merely assert your case ad nauseum. you must hone in on where you disagree. You must clarify your definitions, as well as your assumptions. Also, test your assumptions by asking your opponent very specific questions about what he believes. You may find that your assumptions are false.
I think an important question at this point is what is sensus fidei. Is it merely the consent of the faithful who are currently living and visible? Or is it the consent of all the faithful throughout time? Clarifying that point might help clarify others.
The unique point of contest in this debate, as far as I can see, is whether the Pope can genuinely act (or define) separate from the rest of the Body. I don’t know if Abu really believes that, or if he merely asserts that the definition is not dependant on the opinions of the other bishops, the priests, the religious brethren, and the lay faithful. After all, how can a head act separately from the body? It cannot, because the two are intimately unified.
I wonder if it is a concern of Abu’s that you think, somehow, that the definitions made by the Pope are reliant on consensus. Does he define sensus fidei as consensus of the faithful? I don’t know. If that’s his concern, then I think you’d agree that his concern is justified, because I know that this is not what you believe.
Instead of merely asserting, try asking. From your own stances, you both agree with the texts that you quote so often. But you’re approaching them from different paradigms, and you’re both probably making assumptions about the others’ position. So, ask questions so as to better understand where the other is coming from. If, after this, you clearly see that an error is being held, then endeavor to resolve that. But I haven’t seen that this is clearly the case.
M
mardukm
Guest
We both believe this, but he believes the Pope is the ONLY one who is infallible in the Church and that it is the Pope’s infallibility that grants the Church her infallibility. That’s an aberration of Church teaching.
Judging from our discussion with Abu, he does not actually believe this. He does not believe that it has been granted to the Church as a whole, but that it has been granted to the Pope, and that if the Church or Ecumenical Council is infallible, it is only THROUGH the Pope. That is an aberration of Church teaching.
He quotes myopically from the V1 decrees. I quote from the V1 decrees, the official Relatio, and the Acts of the Council (statements from other bishops and events behind the formulation of the Decrees).
Though it is true that the sensus fidei refers to the Faith of the Church in history, not just in the present day, with due respect, this is beside the point. The official Relatio asserted that it is the present preaching of the Magisterium to which the Pope must adhere, calling this necessary agreement the Rule of Faith. The Relatio affirmed that by “consent” is meant only the direct and explicit consultation of the bishops, not their necessary agreement (which can be determined by the Pope through other means aside from direct consultation). So when the V1 Decree says “not from the consent of the Church” (notwithstanding that it is referring to the irreformibility of the Decree, not the formulation of it), it is not saying that the Pope has no obligation to determine the agreement of the present preaching of the universal Magisterium. But this is exactly what Abu vociferously and incessantly disagrees with. He really believes the Pope NEVER needs to determine this agreement, and acts absolutely by himself for an ex cathedra decree.
He really believes that. Abu and I are old sparring partners from several years back. He is a tried and true Absolutist Petrine advocate.
The irreformibility does not depend on consensus. But the content of the definition itself must be consonant with the present preaching of the universal Magisterium and cannot depart from it. This is a distinct and explicit point of disagreement between Abu and the High Petrine advocates on CAF.
Amen
CONT’d
M
mardukm
Guest
CONT’d
That’s the kind of personality we’re dealing with.
If I’ve misinterpreted Abu, praise God. But, seriously, there are Catholics out there who think like Abu (certainly, members of the SSPX think that way).
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. Thank you for your efforts at peacemaking.
The irreformibility of the decree does not rely on consensus in any way, whether before or after the decree is made. But the content of the definitions must be consonant with the present preaching of the universal Magisterium. I shy from saying it is “reliant” since the Pope obviously has the same sources as the other bishops, and has the capacity to discover it even without direct consultation with his brother bishops (though that is the normative means).
Well, actually, that is what I believe the sensus fidei means. The nuance is that the sensus fidei inherently includes the faith of the Pope and the bishops, Are not the Pope and bishops part of “the faithful?” They are necessarily and inherently part of “the body of the faithful.” The problem is that in Abu’s mind, the Pope is so far above the rest of the Church that when the term is used, he imagines it only refers to the laity – or rather, anyone else (including bishops) except the Pope, and everyone else must simply kowtow to the Pope.
As mentioned, Abu and I are old sparring partners. I’ve tried what you suggest a few times before with him. But he avoids answering the questions, and simply starts on his out-of-context quoting tactic. Abu is definitely one who cannot admit any mistake. That’s evident just from this current conversation. I have maintained the same positions for years now, since I met Abu here on CAF, yet, with respect to the issue with irreformibility, instead of simply admitting that he might have misunderstood me, he states “ah, so Marduk is finally admitting something!”
That’s the kind of personality we’re dealing with.If I’ve misinterpreted Abu, praise God. But, seriously, there are Catholics out there who think like Abu (certainly, members of the SSPX think that way).
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. Thank you for your efforts at peacemaking.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
I don’t know if you have read all of the posts in this thread or not, but if you have, you surely must have noticed that questions were often asked. But the question was either answered with quotes and underlinings or they were answered in ways that had no direct bearing on his adversary’s question. It was a major obstacle to communications, and it was complained of frequently. Jon S asked Abu for definitions and I seconded the request, but nothing has appeared so far. Mardukm provided simple yet elegant definitions for the one side. When will Abu speak plainly?
For example: In his latest post (#181) he says: “Thus the faithful’s consent is predicated on obeying the teaching of the Magisterium.”
He offers this as some sort of ANTIDOTE to mardukm’s position, when NO ONE in this entire thread has EVER implied any thing to the contrary! How do you debate with someone that is forever putting words in your mouth? Who never deals directly with the topic at hand, but fires off irrelevant quotes? Who uses innuendo to smear his opponents?
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Yes, or as Lumen Gentium 25 puts it:
But there is another aspect to “the Faithful” When speaking of the infallibility of the Church. We also hear of the teaching Church (ecclesia docens) and the Listening Church (ecclesia discens) The teaching Church is the Magisterium or hierarchy and the listening Church is (generally) the lay faithful. So in this understanding we have Cardinal Dulles’ statement on Newman’s theology of infallibility:
The crux of the problem (in my view) is a neglect of the theology of Church infallibility and a disordered overemphasis on Papal infallibility.
M
MrSnaith
Guest
Blorgons!As mentioned, Abu and I are old sparring partners. I’ve tried what you suggest a few times before with him. But he avoids answering the questions, and simply starts on his out-of-context quoting tactic. Abu is definitely one who cannot admit any mistake. That’s evident just from this current conversation. I have maintained the same positions for years now, since I met Abu here on CAF, yet, with respect to the issue with irreformibility, instead of simply admitting that he might have misunderstood me, he states “ah, so Marduk is finally admitting something!”
If I’ve misinterpreted Abu, praise God. But, seriously, there are Catholics out there who think like Abu (certainly, members of the SSPX think that way).
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. Thank you for your efforts at peacemaking.
I apologize. Being new to the forums, I’m speaking out of context and making a small fool out of myself. I suppose I got caught up in myself. Thank you for deflating my ego to a more proper level. As an aside, I’ve been trying to think of another example wherein a power or quality of the Church as a whole is held or expressed in a single person. And until just this moment, I was failing to recall what it was, though I knew there was one. It is Mary. She is, by tradition, considered to embody the Church, as the first Tabernacle of Jesus. In a similar vein, the Pope embodies the Church as the Infallible Voice, the Vicar. The Church is the Tabernacle of the Lord, His Body, but Mary was so in a singular and unique way. Likewise, the Church is the Infallible Voice for the world, but the Pope is so in a singular and unique way.
A
Abu
Guest
It has to, and as Fr. James T O’Connor translating and commenting on Bishop Vincent Gasser’s relatio of Vatican I notes: “Indeed, the proper exercise of the infallibility of the entire People of God necessitates ‘a faithful submission to the Magisterium’ if that body of the faithful is to believe, penetrate more deeply, and apply more thoroughly the faith entrusted to the saints. If the teaching of the Pope and bishops is not included in the ‘universal consent about matters of faith and morals’ then one does not have a sensus fidelium, a consensus among all the faithful. Once that is clear, it should be obvious that determining the sensus fidelium is not a matter of poll taking or of sociological reports.” The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius, 1986 p 106].
The recurring theme of denigration – of “kowtowing to the Pope” once again betrays the feeling so long nurtured.
Now it should be obvious that “the Pope” does not have to be “in agreement with the sensus fidei”nor “not contradicting the infallible faith of the* sensus fidei*”, for:
“The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, **aroused and sustained by the Spirit of Truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God **(cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, Vatican II, my emphasis]
Thus the faithful’s consent is predicated on obeying the teaching of the Magisterium.
That feeling, it cannot be called thought, illustrates the flights of fancy, of unreality very well,
That’s why the teaching of Vatican II above on the sensus fidei, and Fr O’Connor’s facts re Bishop Gasser’s relatio, are massacred by mardukm.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Agreed. What he was trying to say was correct, but the analysis of the sentence was wrong. Kind of like back in math class where you get the right answer, but when you show your work, your calculations are in error.
Except that this isn’t what the quotation says. It clearly identifies the definitions as “his” (that is, as the pope’s).
Perhaps, but that isn’t what this quote asserts; it does not say anything about the ‘definitions’ (or ‘definitive acts’) coming in consultation “with the Church” (by which I’m assuming you mean folks other than the bishops).
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
And the quote ninja strikes again! 
Abu:
Yet, Abu has inexplicably made his retort about obedience: Thus Abu:
The fact is, the Pope, as a member of the Faithful, has to OBEY THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING OF THE MAGISTERIUM as well! Which of course includes SACRED TRADITION.
Mardukm was referring to Abu’s drift, as borne out by his posts, that the “faithful” meant ONLY the laity, in contradiction of Vatican II, which equates the “faithful” the “People of God” as consisting of ALL the bishops down to the last of the laity. Therefore whenever there is talk of the consensus of the Faithful (sensus fidei), he (Abu) always seems to exclude the Holy Father, as if he is SO far above anyone else in the Church, that he could never be lumped in with the Faithful, despite the fact that his very quote says otherwise! He does believe it when Fr. O’Conner says so though.
Yet, Abu has inexplicably made his retort about obedience: Thus Abu:
This is CLASSIC ABU. He has evaded the actual issue and instead made it one of dissent and denigration “so long nurtured.” He doesn’t answer challenges to his statements, he ups the “error ante” to full blown dissent and denigration.
The fact is, the Pope, as a member of the Faithful, has to OBEY THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING OF THE MAGISTERIUM as well! Which of course includes SACRED TRADITION.
C
CyrilSebastian
Guest
When I attended a Catholic grade school, we were taught that the Pope was only Infallible in Catholic religious matters.
V
Veritas1994
Guest
CyrilSebast28:
pretty much when he exercises Ex Cathedra which has three conditions
- He speaks as the pastor of all Catholics (not simply to a group or nation)
- He speaks in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (with authoritative language such as stating that it is solemnly declared and usually attaching an anathema statement)
- he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church (such as doctrine and salvation an not science or economy for example)
A
Abu
Guest
The same refusal to face the reality of the Church’s clear teaching. Nothing new.
The teaching of the Church on infallibility is clear but distorted by those who offer their own opinions but neglect or distort the truth.
Pope: Address to International Theological Commission
2012-12-07 Vatican RadioThis was Pope Benedict XVI’s message to the International Theological Commission at the conclusion of their Plenary Assembly here at the Vatican
“Among the criteria of Catholic theology, the document mentions the attention that theologians must pay to sensus fidelium. It is very useful that your Commission has also focused on this issue which is of particular importance for the reflection on the faith and life of the Church. The Second Vatican Council, while confirming the specific and irreplaceable role of Magisterium, stressed, however, that the whole People of God participates in Christ’s prophetic office, thus fulfilling the inspired desire expressed by Moses, ” If only all the people of the LORD were prophets! If only the LORD would bestow his spirit on them! “(Num 11:29).
“The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium thus teaches us on the subject: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. “(n. 12).
“This gift, the sensus fidei, constitutes in the believer a kind of supernatural instinct that has a connatural life with the same object of faith. It is a criterion for discerning whether or not a truth belongs to the deposit of the living apostolic tradition. It also has a propositional value because the Holy Spirit does not cease to speak to the Churches and lead them to the whole truth. **Today, however, it is particularly important to clarify the criteria used to distinguish the authentic sensus fidelium from its counterfeits. In fact, it is not some kind of public opinion of the Church, and it is unthinkable to mention it in order to challenge the teachings of the Magisterium, this because the sensus fidei can not grow authentically in the believer except to the extent in which he or she fully participates in the life of the Church, and this requires a responsible adherence to her Magisterium.”
en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2012/12/pope:_address_to_international_theological_commission/en1-645511
Thus, further confirmation, again, that the faithful’s consent is predicated on obeying the teaching of the Magisterium and there is a passive infallibility of the faithful.
- Status