O
Ocarm
Guest
(continued)
More to the point, one remains Catholic even if one is openly dissenting from Church teaching, since Catholicism is basically a life sentence (!); but the failure to give assent is not an insignificant matter, and not an issue of personal choice (to assume it is would merely be another form of ‘cafeteria Catholicism’).
*
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. *(Catechism of the Catholic Church).
See: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM
And irrespective of that, Most Holy Trinity seminary doesn’t merely dissent from the teachings of the Church, but claims that the chair of Peter is vacant. This is schismatic. Why are you defending their orthodoxy unless you are yourself a sedevacantist? Either you are yourself of the opinion that the chair is vacant, or you are mistakenly supporting a group that is; if you weren’t aware of your mistake, perhaps you are now. Since I note that you quote Blessed Pope John Paul II in your signature, I assume that you’re making an honest mistake here, so I’d advise you to think it over.
Irrespective of that, best wishes and prayers to you - and to all CAF members - in our ongoing catechesis, which never ends - there’s always so much more for us to learn.
This has been a long digression from the subject of the thread, so I’m leaving it there. Apologies again to anyone who is looking for information about curricula rather than an argument regarding the status of the pope and the other bishops.
Who says so? Successive popes, successive heads and members of the dicasteries of the Vatican who defend orthodoxy, and successive cardinals and bishops overwhelmingly disagree, and have proceeded to teach the Catholic faith without arguing that there is any discontinuity.
So there were infallible teachings from the council? On that we agree, meaning that the council must have been conducted by validly elected bishops, including a validly elected bishop of Rome - because imposters couldn’t have produced infallible teachings. So do we agree that Most Holy Trinity are wrong when they claim otherwise? Which would mean that their curriculum (and indeed, their existence) is based on a false premise, yes?
More to the point, one remains Catholic even if one is openly dissenting from Church teaching, since Catholicism is basically a life sentence (!); but the failure to give assent is not an insignificant matter, and not an issue of personal choice (to assume it is would merely be another form of ‘cafeteria Catholicism’).
*
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. *(Catechism of the Catholic Church).
See: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM
And irrespective of that, Most Holy Trinity seminary doesn’t merely dissent from the teachings of the Church, but claims that the chair of Peter is vacant. This is schismatic. Why are you defending their orthodoxy unless you are yourself a sedevacantist? Either you are yourself of the opinion that the chair is vacant, or you are mistakenly supporting a group that is; if you weren’t aware of your mistake, perhaps you are now. Since I note that you quote Blessed Pope John Paul II in your signature, I assume that you’re making an honest mistake here, so I’d advise you to think it over.
Irrespective of that, best wishes and prayers to you - and to all CAF members - in our ongoing catechesis, which never ends - there’s always so much more for us to learn.
This has been a long digression from the subject of the thread, so I’m leaving it there. Apologies again to anyone who is looking for information about curricula rather than an argument regarding the status of the pope and the other bishops.
