M
mlchance
Guest
Here’s a thought. Why not just do what the Church says? Obedience equals faith.
– Mark L. Chance.
– Mark L. Chance.
- Status
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Actually, it was Pope John Paul II who promulagated the 1983 Code of Canon Law:
But if Pope John Paul II didn’t even know when he was speaking infallibly, then I guess we can’t really trust his choice of terminology in the code of canon law either.
There are a lot of dogmatic theologians who disagree with this statement. And your calling them “dissident” doesn’t make them so. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is in charge of that determination.
This says nothing about infallibility. It states that the Pope’s non-infallible magisterium is nonetheless authoritative.
Infallibility is more than the absence of error. Infallibility is the absence of the possibility of error.
Don’t forget the Vatican curia. You have repeatedly asserted that the CDF has taught error.
B
Brian_Ingram
Guest
Cardinal Ratzinger when he was head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith gave an opinion that Ordinatio sacerdotalis was not an exercise in the Popes Solemn Magisterium but one that was a constant Tradition of the Church and as such part of the deposit of faith and an infallible teaching in the ordinary magisterium. While I agree that it is, I believe that the last portion of the teaching in O.S “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful”,
is a new clarification of the Tradition and therefore makes it also one in the Solemn Magisterium.
Pax
Brian
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Brian Ingram:
Brian Ingram:
A “responsum ad dubium” is more than an opinion.
Brian Ingram:
Whether it is a new clarification or the repetition of existing doctrine isn’t a factor in whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis belongs to the solemn papal magisterium. The key factor is whether Pope John Paul II intended it to be ex cathedra or not. He could have gone either way, but in the end he chose not to use papal infallibility. Archbishop Bertone says:
B
Brian_Ingram
Guest
But less than an infallible statement.
Is that what Archbishop Bertone says?
He actually says it is an act of Papal infalliblity. “However, the ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as definitive because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of the charism of infallibility does not take the form of a papal act of definition, but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets forth with his formal pronouncement of confirmation and reaffirmation (generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter)”
In other words Archbishop Bertone is saying the Pope is teaching infallible in the ordinary universal magisterium. Why because he uses the words "This latter exercise [by the Pope]of the charism of infallibility… pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium" .
Pax
Brian
.
D
dcdurel
Guest
*I said, *
“There is no Church teaching anywhere that “authentic” is a synonym for “non-infallible”. Again, this is non-sense made up by some dissident theologians.”
You wrote:Actually, it was Pope John Paul II who promulagated the 1983 Code of Canon Law:
Quote:
Canon 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops."
Three errors. Canon law is a matter of discipline. Not teaching. Second. Y*ou used it originally in reference to the Pope, not to the bishops. Thus again I repeat, there is no **synonym that authentic means non-infallible. *
Third, when the bishops do teach infallibly, their teachings are still authentic. Thus, authentic even for the bishops still is not a synonym for non-infallible.
The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.
There is NOT a fifth test: ( 5. The Pope must state that this teaching was infallible, the Pope must know this teaching is infallible, a Cardinal must say the teaching is infallible, theologians must agree the teaching is infallible, and on and on and on with nonsense, nonsense and nonsense)
I repeat, there is NO fifth test.
How many times do I have to repeat it?
I don’t think you are that dumb. I think you want there to be a fifth test. I think you don’t want Vatican 1’s definition. You must not like the teachings that the Pope is giving.
I wrote:“In fact, even in the popes’ non ex cathedra teachings, in their teachings of the ordinary magisterium they are also infallible.”
Pope Pius XII said that in the Pope’s ordinary magisterium the teachings fall under the those in which Jesus said, “he who hears you, hears Me”
Thus, unless Jesus can make teaching errors, those teachings are also infallible.
“There is no Church teaching anywhere that “authentic” is a synonym for “non-infallible”. Again, this is non-sense made up by some dissident theologians.”
You wrote:Actually, it was Pope John Paul II who promulagated the 1983 Code of Canon Law:
Quote:
Canon 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops."
Three errors. Canon law is a matter of discipline. Not teaching. Second. Y*ou used it originally in reference to the Pope, not to the bishops. Thus again I repeat, there is no **synonym that authentic means non-infallible. *
Third, when the bishops do teach infallibly, their teachings are still authentic. Thus, authentic even for the bishops still is not a synonym for non-infallible.
Again, lets go back to Vatican 1. There are only FOUR tests for infallibility:
The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.
There is NOT a fifth test: ( 5. The Pope must state that this teaching was infallible, the Pope must know this teaching is infallible, a Cardinal must say the teaching is infallible, theologians must agree the teaching is infallible, and on and on and on with nonsense, nonsense and nonsense)
I repeat, there is NO fifth test.
How many times do I have to repeat it?
I don’t think you are that dumb. I think you want there to be a fifth test. I think you don’t want Vatican 1’s definition. You must not like the teachings that the Pope is giving.
I wrote:“In fact, even in the popes’ non ex cathedra teachings, in their teachings of the ordinary magisterium they are also infallible.”
Pope Pius XII said that in the Pope’s ordinary magisterium the teachings fall under the those in which Jesus said, “he who hears you, hears Me”
Thus, unless Jesus can make teaching errors, those teachings are also infallible.
D
dcdurel
Guest
You wrote: “There are a lot of dogmatic theologians who disagree with this statement. And your calling them “dissident” doesn’t make them so.”
Then why don’t they accept the teachings of the Pope?
The biggest fault of theologians is that they DON’T accept all the teachings of the Popes, and thus they mislead millions of Catholics. And the bad theologians mislead the few good ones. Yet they know good and well none of them are infallible and not even close to being infallible.
I am espcially upset with the fact that for at least all during the 20’th century and still today, it is Catholic theologians who have misled all Catholics into believing “The Gospel” is primarily the teachings and deeds of Jesus written in the four Gospels. (as the old Catholic Encyclopedia says)
And this has misled almost all priests into not teaching the basics. Because their primary duty is to proclaim the Gospel.
They think that explaining the Gospel readings and the other scriptures of the readings is proclaiming the Gospel.
The reason most priests don’t teach doctrine any more, especially doctrine on sin and grace, is because of this false idea of the Gospel spread by Catholic theologians.
The Popes, on the other hand, teach “The Gospel” is the entire message the apostles received from Jesus and the entire message that they handed down throught the Church. Thus, when the apostles proclaimed the Gospel, they did not do do by reading the four Gospels. When a pagan, for example, asked about this Jesus he heard about, the **apostles did not start reading the Gospel of John. **“In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, etc.” Pure stupidity.
We know what the apostles taught, by learning what the Christians of the first century believed, since they learned their Gospel from the apostles. And all the early Christians, who followed the apostles, believed the same teachings of the Church today. Their beliefs were all Catholic That is because The Gospel they learned was the Catholic faith. That is why at mass we pray for those who hold the Catholic faith “that comes to us from the apostles”. How does it come from the apostles? It was the Gospel they taught and preached.
Thus, when the apostles proclaimed the Gospel, they proclaimed the “Catholic faith.” They did NOT read the Gospels and then explain them. They taught the entire Catholic faith
The Gospel the apostles taught and preached is the CATHOLIC FAITH.
The only way the Gospel can be taught is by teaching the Catholic Faith.
The Gospel can only by proclaimed by proclaiming the Catholic Faith.
This is what the Popes have been teaching over and over and over. From Pope Pius X, to Pope Benedict XVI, ALL HAVE BEEN giving the exact same teaching.
I have not found a single theologian who understands this. All theologians are totally lost when it comes to what the content of the Gospel is. Totally absolutely lost.
There is not a single theologian that explains to priests that to proclaim the Gospel at mass the entire Catholic Faith must be proclaimed, at mass during the homily. The Creed, Sacraments, Commandments and prayer, from the Catechisms must be proclaimed during the homily.
**This is proclaimng the Gospel **
. To teach the Gospel, the basics of the Catholic faith must be taught. The Trinity and the heirarchy of truths must be taught at mass.
To Catechize( to teach the creed, sacraments, commandments and prayer) is simply to teach the Gospel, the same Gospel the apostles taught and the same way they taught it, generally in an organic and systematic manner.
Theologians need to exclude all else except Church teachings and start from the basics and learn **ONLY what the Popes teach and approve. Because right now they are totally lost. They actually have no idea that the Gospel is the Catholic Faith. **
Then why don’t they accept the teachings of the Pope?
The biggest fault of theologians is that they DON’T accept all the teachings of the Popes, and thus they mislead millions of Catholics. And the bad theologians mislead the few good ones. Yet they know good and well none of them are infallible and not even close to being infallible.
I am espcially upset with the fact that for at least all during the 20’th century and still today, it is Catholic theologians who have misled all Catholics into believing “The Gospel” is primarily the teachings and deeds of Jesus written in the four Gospels. (as the old Catholic Encyclopedia says)
And this has misled almost all priests into not teaching the basics. Because their primary duty is to proclaim the Gospel.
They think that explaining the Gospel readings and the other scriptures of the readings is proclaiming the Gospel.
The reason most priests don’t teach doctrine any more, especially doctrine on sin and grace, is because of this false idea of the Gospel spread by Catholic theologians.
The Popes, on the other hand, teach “The Gospel” is the entire message the apostles received from Jesus and the entire message that they handed down throught the Church. Thus, when the apostles proclaimed the Gospel, they did not do do by reading the four Gospels. When a pagan, for example, asked about this Jesus he heard about, the **apostles did not start reading the Gospel of John. **“In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, etc.” Pure stupidity.
We know what the apostles taught, by learning what the Christians of the first century believed, since they learned their Gospel from the apostles. And all the early Christians, who followed the apostles, believed the same teachings of the Church today. Their beliefs were all Catholic That is because The Gospel they learned was the Catholic faith. That is why at mass we pray for those who hold the Catholic faith “that comes to us from the apostles”. How does it come from the apostles? It was the Gospel they taught and preached.
Thus, when the apostles proclaimed the Gospel, they proclaimed the “Catholic faith.” They did NOT read the Gospels and then explain them. They taught the entire Catholic faith
The Gospel the apostles taught and preached is the CATHOLIC FAITH.
The only way the Gospel can be taught is by teaching the Catholic Faith.
The Gospel can only by proclaimed by proclaiming the Catholic Faith.
This is what the Popes have been teaching over and over and over. From Pope Pius X, to Pope Benedict XVI, ALL HAVE BEEN giving the exact same teaching.
I have not found a single theologian who understands this. All theologians are totally lost when it comes to what the content of the Gospel is. Totally absolutely lost.
There is not a single theologian that explains to priests that to proclaim the Gospel at mass the entire Catholic Faith must be proclaimed, at mass during the homily. The Creed, Sacraments, Commandments and prayer, from the Catechisms must be proclaimed during the homily.
**This is proclaimng the Gospel **
. To teach the Gospel, the basics of the Catholic faith must be taught. The Trinity and the heirarchy of truths must be taught at mass.
To Catechize( to teach the creed, sacraments, commandments and prayer) is simply to teach the Gospel, the same Gospel the apostles taught and the same way they taught it, generally in an organic and systematic manner.
Theologians need to exclude all else except Church teachings and start from the basics and learn **ONLY what the Popes teach and approve. Because right now they are totally lost. They actually have no idea that the Gospel is the Catholic Faith. **
C
Catholic2003
Guest
I like the teachings of the Popes just fine.
Please remember that it is you who are dissenting against the CDF, not I.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Brian Ingram:
Maybe then Cardinal Ratzinger’s words are clearer:
The ordinary, universal Magisterium refers to the teachings of all the bishops, not just the Pope.
B
Brian_Ingram
Guest
In Cardinal Ratzinger words “Its importance, however, could be discovered above all in the concluding words of the Letter: “in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (n. 4).”
Those words "in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful" (n. 4)." is an exercise of the highest teaching authority within the Church, also the words confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) forms part of the foundation of the Petrine office infallibility. Cardinal Ratzinger says it is not an infallible declaration of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium but Archbishop Bertone is saying the Pope is teaching infallible in the ordinary universal magisterium.
Bishops collectively dispersed throughout the world or gathered in a Council can teach infallible but only if the Pope confirms their decisions. They on their own individually or collectively do not posses the charism of infallibility. It is only in union with the Pope that they share in the charism that pertains to his office. Also if the Pope cannot speak infallible in the ordinary universal Magisterium then what bishop can?
Pax
Brian
D
dcdurel
Guest
Montie Claunch:
“. . . the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is,
when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all
Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic
authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by
the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable
because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of
the Church.” [First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ]
There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be
(1) intending to teach
(2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority
(3) a matter of Faith or morals
(4) to be held by the universal Church.
There is NO fifth test, such as "the Pope must state He is teaching infallibly, (they never do this), or a bishop or cardinal must state He is teaching infallibly, or the Vatican Curia must state he is teaching infallibly, or it must be a new teaching, or it can’t be a repeat of previous teachings, or it must be a solomn teaching, and especially “most theologians don’t agree it is infallible”. Theologians are usually the very people the Popes is addressing in these infallible teachings. The very, very last person we would consult would be theologians.
Vatican I made the requirements clear and easy to understand so that ordinary Catholics could by pass the deceitful theologians.
I repeat there is NO fifth test.
There are only 4 tests for infallibility.
Thus using these four tests, we can see almost everytime the Popes teach, whether orally, in encyclicals, papal bulls, etc. they are teaching infallibly.
Unless one or more tests are missing, the Popes are always teaching infallibly.
When people deny that a teaching is infallible, simply ask them which of these four tests are missing.
They will hem and haw and dance around the answer and never give tell you which test is missing. People like this cannot be trusted and have no desire to tell the truth.
I think it is good to go back to the original post. We can KNOW when the Pope is teaching ex cathedra by learning the teaching of Vatican 1, when it was first clearly defined.
“. . . the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is,
when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all
Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic
authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by
the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable
because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of
the Church.” [First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ]
There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be
(1) intending to teach
(2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority
(3) a matter of Faith or morals
(4) to be held by the universal Church.
There is NO fifth test, such as "the Pope must state He is teaching infallibly, (they never do this), or a bishop or cardinal must state He is teaching infallibly, or the Vatican Curia must state he is teaching infallibly, or it must be a new teaching, or it can’t be a repeat of previous teachings, or it must be a solomn teaching, and especially “most theologians don’t agree it is infallible”. Theologians are usually the very people the Popes is addressing in these infallible teachings. The very, very last person we would consult would be theologians.
Vatican I made the requirements clear and easy to understand so that ordinary Catholics could by pass the deceitful theologians.
I repeat there is NO fifth test.
There are only 4 tests for infallibility.
Thus using these four tests, we can see almost everytime the Popes teach, whether orally, in encyclicals, papal bulls, etc. they are teaching infallibly.
Unless one or more tests are missing, the Popes are always teaching infallibly.
When people deny that a teaching is infallible, simply ask them which of these four tests are missing.
They will hem and haw and dance around the answer and never give tell you which test is missing. People like this cannot be trusted and have no desire to tell the truth.
- Status