Vicar for Rome issues strict guidelines for implementing Amoris Laetitia [CC]

[pnewton]

Are you insinuating the Pope or Father Ruggero here? Either way they both have promoted nothing but the truth.

Either way, appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy as has been presented, it it a doctrinal truth. The Sacrament of Holy Orders provides a real Grace, that with the eyes of faith, we can legitimately give the respect due.

We can find reasons to support the Pope’s encyclical, just like we can find reasoning to support the Immaculate Conception, the Primacy of Peter, the all male priesthood (defined in 1994), but in the end, we accept something based on authority alone.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Either way, appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy as has been presented, it it a doctrinal truth. The Sacrament of Holy Orders provides a real Grace, that with the eyes of faith, we can legitimately give the respect due.

We can find reasons to support the Pope’s encyclical, just like we can find reasoning to support the Immaculate Conception, the Primacy of Peter, the all male priesthood (defined in 1994), but in the end, we accept something based on authority alone.

So you are against authority? I’m sorry your post is confusing to me.

 

[Ender]

Are you insinuating the Pope or Father Ruggero here?

I try not to insinuate things; if I mean something I’ll come out and say it. Don’t interpret my comments to mean any more than they say. Deal with my argument as I present it; that should be clear enough.

Either way they both have promoted nothing but the truth.

Which is all I’m trying to do, and which is why I ask that you respond to what I say and not who or what you think I am.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

So you are against authority? I’m sorry your post is confusing to me.

Then I apologize, but no, I am not against authority. Let me back up.

There is an argument that can be called an “argument from authority.” This can be a fallacy. Note it can be. It doesn’t have to be a fallacy. An example would be that 9 out of 10 doctors smoke Camel because it hits the “T-zone”.

Now theology can be argued apart from appealing to authority. Catholic Answers does this quite a bit. It is a good way to address a person or persons that do not agree as to what authority is. However, there are some areas that we all agree authority matters. If we were on a board discussing cancer treatments (why one would do this is beyond me), then it would make sense that an oncoloogist would be a better source than, say someone like me, who can’t even spell oncologist.

So, Fr. Don Ruggero is pointing out that he knows certain things first hand about the way the structure of the Church works. Perhaps some of our opinions would make sense in the business world, or in politics, but he knows the Church is operated differently. I think we all understand this if we think about it, but he lives in this environment every day. Therefore, for him, it is not just his authority as a priest, but his expertise as living every day as a priest that gives him the right just to say the way some things are. For this reason, no one can represent himself at CAF as a clergy without them verifying that fact.

Most of us can do this somewhat. I could speak of prisons, jails and law enforcement, as well as Southern Baptist. I guess an oncologist here could speak of how hospitals work. So, yes, authority can matter. Though I admit I still do not know if Fr. Don Ruggero smokes Camels or not, or what a T-zone is.

On a side note, I overstepped my own expertise today. I told my wife I thought her eyebrows were too high.

She looked surprised.

 

[Ender]

Either way, appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy as has been presented, it it a doctrinal truth. The Sacrament of Holy Orders provides a real Grace, that with the eyes of faith, we can legitimately give the respect due.

We can find reasons to support the Pope’s encyclical, just like we can find reasoning to support the Immaculate Conception, the Primacy of Peter, the all male priesthood (defined in 1994), but in the end, we accept something based on authority alone.

Even the pope himself (let alone the clergy) is subject to error in certain pronouncements. That should of course never be presumed but let’s not pretend that one can never disagree with the pontiff. What’s involved here, however, is not so much a disagreement with Pope Francis as disagreements with others about what his statements actually mean. His interpreters are surely not protected from error, and they have no particular claim to the truth.

Ender

 

[graciew]

On a side note, I overstepped my own expertise today. I told my wife I thought her eyebrows were too high.

She looked surprised.

 

[dans0622]

Please don’t say that about Pope Francis. He has certainly not “forgotten cannon law!” Why would you say such a thing?

That’s the trouble with laity today. They try to be their own pope if they disagree with the current one. :sad_yes"

Hello,

I didn’t say a word about the Pope. I was offering an opinion about something said by Cardinal Vallini. Cardinal Vallini, prior to his appointment as Vicar for Rome, was the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura. So, he is a canon lawyer of considerable note. I, possessing a mere license in canon law, was offering some deference to his vast knowledge and experience. I don’t think I was … “pontificating.”

Dan