Latest topics
» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM and Christine Niles approve liberal theology on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room
Fri May 15, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Cardinal Pell recommends the Roman Forum and telling a lie
Wed May 13, 2015 9:43 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» GOOGLE CLOSES DOWN BLOG EUCHARIST AND MISSION
Tue May 12, 2015 9:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this
Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:25 am by George Brenner

» Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:27 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:49 am by Lionel Andrades

» Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:25 am by Lionel Andrades

» Beautiful Gregorian Chant
Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:10 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:47 am by Lionel Andrades


The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  tornpage on Thu Jun 09, 2011 3:19 pm

While we pursue our good discussion on explicit faith, I wanted to get some feedback on a related issue.

As those who are reading the discussion on explicit faith can tell, I believe explicit faith in Christ is required for salvation, and that this means explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation. I therefore believe that the Catechism, the CCC, and the popes/bishops who teach that salvation may be had without knowing Christ or recognizing or acknowledging him are all teaching error, a false teaching on a point of the Gospel.

This teaching is part of the ordinary and universal magisterium, the V2 popes and bishops united with them.

How do I resolve this issue without rejecting the current hierarchy as a bunch of apostates, as in fact a false Church, since the True Church could not teach error in its ordinary and universal magisterium?

Thanks in advance for your comments.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  MRyan on Thu Jun 09, 2011 4:47 pm

tornpage wrote:I therefore believe that the Catechism, the CCC, and the popes/bishops who teach that salvation may be had without knowing Christ or recognizing or acknowledging him are all teaching error, a false teaching on a point of the Gospel.

This teaching is part of the ordinary and universal magisterium, the V2 popes and bishops united with them.
They are not teaching “error” (we’ll set that aside for the time being); but you might have a flawed understanding of the infallibility of the “ordinary and universal magisterium”.

Let me demonstrate what I mean by citing the CDF Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the PROFESSIO FIDEI :

“9. … In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.[17] The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.

Note 17: It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church's faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. Furthermore, the intention of the ordinary and universal Magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context.”

Even with a universality of Bishops today who hold to the disputed teaching, it was never declared “explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph).”

And it does not seem that it could be held as such without demonstrating that it was "expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church's faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition", for the simple reason that it would need to have been believed always, and not just in a “merely synchronic sense”, but in a truly universal “diachronic” sense (in every age).

How’s that?

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  tornpage on Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:16 pm

Even with a universality of Bishops today who hold to the disputed teaching, it was never declared “explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph).”

And it does not seem that it could be held as such without demonstrating that it was "expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church's faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition", for the simple reason that it would need to have been believed always, and not just in a “merely synchronic sense”, but in a truly universal “diachronic” sense (in every age).

How’s that?

That's very good.

John Lane had me thinking that a synchronic universality was all that was necessary. His position made sense: if ordinary Joe Catholic is presented with a teaching of the pope and all the bishops united with him, why should he have to sift it like a theologian to see if it is diachronically universal - as if Joe Catholic (me) is capable of doing such. Any additional comment?

In thinking about this issue, I've compared it to the Arian heresy in the time of Athanasius. I always used to distinguish it because the successor to Peter, the pope - the central and most important figure for determining whether the Church does x or y - never espoused the heresy.

Obviously, things are different as to "implied faith."

Now you need to convince me that it is possible for the pope and virtually all the bishops united with him to teach error in other than a private capacity, even if you've shown me that the Church's infallibility is not endangered.

As to it not being error . . . unfortunately, you'll failing miserably on that front. Smile

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Lourdes on Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:02 pm

Now you need to convince me that it is possible for the pope and virtually all the bishops united with him to teach error in other than a private capacity, even if you've shown me that the Church's infallibility is not endangered.

Yes, I'd like to know this too.

I'd like to understand also how the Church can redefine Herself. In a book written by John Paul II when he was still cardinal, he wrote that at the Second Vatican Council the Church redefined Her nature.

Not trying to be controversial but sincerely seeking to understand what has become a very complex Church. Smile

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  MRyan on Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 pm

tornpage wrote:
Even with a universality of Bishops today who hold to the disputed teaching, it was never declared “explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph).”

And it does not seem that it could be held as such without demonstrating that it was "expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church's faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition", for the simple reason that it would need to have been believed always, and not just in a “merely synchronic sense”, but in a truly universal “diachronic” sense (in every age).

How’s that?

That's very good.

John Lane had me thinking that a synchronic universality was all that was necessary. His position made sense: if ordinary Joe Catholic is presented with a teaching of the pope and all the bishops united with him, why should he have to sift it like a theologian to see if it is diachronically universal - as if Joe Catholic (me) is capable of doing such. Any additional comment?
Of course, you know me! Yes, I know his argument (popular among certain theologians), and thought it made sense for the reason given, though his reasons were also more technical than just that. But we have something John does not, a living, authoritative magisterium that can settle these long disputed questions (while raising others!).

But I still believe that the synchronic universality argument has merit from the standpoint of the indefectibility of the Church. And this goes to your protest over the implicit faith controversy. How can the Church teach heresy on a matter directly related to a matter of Faith? While the teaching may be reformable and subject to at least some major clarification and revision, I do not see how it can be “heresy” without denying the very divine assistance promised to Peter to “confirm” the brethren in the Faith, whole and inviolate. As you know, this is not some “typo” in the CCC and elsewhere; it’s been around a very long time; and if you think Pius IX “denied” this teaching, I’m beginning to realize he did not ... if anything, he confirmed it. I think Fr. Hardon is right is his assessment and demonstrates why the “rigorist” interpretation (even if it is orthodox) is deeply flawed.

Btw, I’ve come to a solution (in my own mind) to this “implicit faith” business … I’m still mulling it over, but it suddenly makes sense and ties in with everything I’ve been saying on justification. In fact, I bet you know where I’m going with this … we’ll see. Hint, Aquinas played a major part in settling this for me. I’ll get to it when I can.

One more comment on diachronic universality. It was Br. Andre who directed me to the footnote in his article on the Commentary, and he used this argument to challenge those who say that baptism of desire is an infallible teaching of the universal and ordinary magisterium. I think his rebuttal is valid, though I was never one of those who claimed that baptism of desire is an infallible teaching of the UOM, even if I believe it is infallible from the standpoint of the general infallibility of the Church on matters of faith.

tornpage wrote:In thinking about this issue, I've compared it to the Arian heresy in the time of Athanasius. I always used to distinguish it because the successor to Peter, the pope - the central and most important figure for determining whether the Church does x or y - never espoused the heresy.

Obviously, things are different as to "implied faith."

Now you need to convince me that it is possible for the pope and virtually all the bishops united with him to teach error in other than a private capacity, even if you've shown me that the Church's infallibility is not endangered.

As to it not being error . . . unfortunately, you'll failing miserably on that front. Smile

I know. Sigh.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  MRyan on Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:14 pm

Lourdes wrote:
Now you need to convince me that it is possible for the pope and virtually all the bishops united with him to teach error in other than a private capacity, even if you've shown me that the Church's infallibility is not endangered.

Yes, I'd like to know this too.

I'd like to understand also how the Church can redefine Herself. In a book written by John Paul II when he was still cardinal, he wrote that at the Second Vatican Council the Church redefined Her nature.

Not trying to be controversial but sincerely seeking to understand what has become a very complex Church. Smile
Hi Lourdes,

Yes, that was quite troubling. As much as I hate trying to explain the words of a pope, I think it is fair to say that he was not suggesting that the Church redefined her nature by redefining who she IS (her very essence), but "redefined" (by clarifying or further developing) one long neglected aspect of her essential nature.

VCII certainly did that!

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  columba on Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:35 pm

Your not the only one struggling with this issue Tornpage. I too would like to have it all explained. In the interim I'm holding that it is not authentic magisterial teaching but rather the private thoughts of individual members of the hierarchy (even if they collectively show a united front including recent popes). To believe otherwise would inevitably lead to the conclusion that the Church teaches error and we know that She can't do that and if She does then she is can't be the true Church.

A problem not addressed in Mikes response (though the response was very good) is that of a Pope holding to a heretical position (and even declaring it publicly) and the implications of that.
Does anyone know if traditional understandings or teachings were ever invoked to uphold this notion that non-explicit faith in Christ can suffice for salvation?

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  MRyan on Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:45 pm

columba wrote:
Does anyone know if traditional understandings or teachings were ever invoked to uphold this notion that non-explicit faith in Christ can suffice for salvation?
Columba,

I know we have another dialogue going, so I'll try and keep this one very simple by asking a very direct question.

Does the a state of justification/sanctification (since the promulgation of the Gospel) place and equip one for heaven provided one dies in that state?

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Lourdes on Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:19 pm

MRyan wrote:
Lourdes wrote:
Now you need to convince me that it is possible for the pope and virtually all the bishops united with him to teach error in other than a private capacity, even if you've shown me that the Church's infallibility is not endangered.

Yes, I'd like to know this too.

I'd like to understand also how the Church can redefine Herself. In a book written by John Paul II when he was still cardinal, he wrote that at the Second Vatican Council the Church redefined Her nature.

Not trying to be controversial but sincerely seeking to understand what has become a very complex Church. Smile
Hi Lourdes,

Yes, that was quite troubling. As much as I hate trying to explain the words of a pope, I think it is fair to say that he was not suggesting that the Church redefined her nature by redefining who she IS (her very essence), but "redefined" (by clarifying or further developing) one long neglected aspect of her essential nature.

VCII certainly did that!

What long neglected aspect of Her essential nature was that? It's an honest question with no sarcasm at all intended.

Listen, can we move this argument out of this section so we can discuss it at great length? I have a slew of questions and troubling concerns that I have never been able to straighten out because I have never encountered anyone that was objective enough to do so. Either the post Vatican II Church could do no right or the post Vatican II Church could do no wrong, were the two mentalities I met up with.


Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  columba on Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:24 pm

MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
Does anyone know if traditional understandings or teachings were ever invoked to uphold this notion that non-explicit faith in Christ can suffice for salvation?
Columba,

I know we have another dialogue going, so I'll try and keep this one very simple by asking a very direct question.

Does the a state of justification/sanctification (since the promulgation of the Gospel) place and equip one for heaven provided one dies in that state?

Hehe.. that's a little bit like one of my questions to you.
How does one physically determine who is justified and who is not?
I remember on Pasdendi's forum asking for views on this and it was abruptly cut short. It referred to St. Pauls words; (Romans 8: 30) "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

My answer then; The predestined will be called, incorporated into the mystical body of Christ through Baptism and be glorified through perseverance in the faith.
Wasn't Abraham justified through faith? Without faith it is impossible to please God, therefore those who are justified have explicit faith.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Lourdes on Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:25 pm

In the interim I'm holding that it is not authentic magisterial teaching but rather the private thoughts of individual members of the hierarchy (even if they collectively show a united front including recent popes). To believe otherwise would inevitably lead to the conclusion that the Church teaches error and we know that She can't do that and if She does then she is can't be the true Church.

Columba, that is how I think also. It can't be authentic magisterial teaching. Nor do I buy the "evolved doctrine" line when, in some cases, it evolved itself out of any real meaning whatsoever.

Another thing that troubles me is this "People of God".

Has anyone here read the series of books by Fr. Johannes Dormann entitled The Theological Journey of Pope John Paul II? Now those books would make an excellent thread. But if I am the only one to have read them, there goes that!! study

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Jehanne on Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:47 pm

It was once the theological teaching of the Church that the Earth was at the physical center of the Universe:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html

"Therefore . . . , invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Glorious Mother Mary, We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture, and, consequently, that you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated in the sacred canons and other general and particular constituents against delinquents of this description. From which it is Our pleasure that you be absolved, provided that with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in Our presence, you abjure, curse, and detest, the said error and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome."

Yep, the Church can err; not the Holy Spirit, of course, but human beings. In the case of Galileo, it was not the first time, nor will it be the last.

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Lourdes on Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:32 pm

As I have said, I am not tryng to be a smart aleck, but this is the problem that I have with what you have posted, Jehanne.

If the Church (and the Bible) was wrong with that, what confidence can I have that She is correct in any other infallible statement She has made? If She was mistaken once before, it is not possible that She can be mistaken again? Of what use then is the Church?

I am only posting this to show how my mind works, not to be a smart aleck.

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  tornpage on Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:43 pm

But I still believe that the synchronic universality argument has merit from the standpoint of the indefectibility of the Church. And this goes to your protest over the implicit faith controversy. How can the Church teach heresy on a matter directly related to a matter of Faith? While the teaching may be reformable and subject to at least some major clarification and revision, I do not see how it can be “heresy” without denying the very divine assistance promised to Peter to “confirm” the brethren in the Faith, whole and inviolate

Yes, that's it. Indefectibility. This is the problem.

It could be heresy without violating Our Lord's promise if the Peters were not Peters - formal, occult heretics before elevation. Speaking of Lane, I think that's his view as to everyone after John XXIII.

More later, guys . . . duty calls.


tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  tornpage on Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:44 pm

As to Lane, I think he believes they were "public" heretics. Not sure . . . but heretics.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Lourdes on Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:53 pm

Speaking of "indefectibility", I just read in a book today that it is not fides divina, rather it is sententia certa, four grades lower than fides divina - this is according to Ott's book.

Back to my study

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  columba on Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:56 pm

It was once the theological teaching of the Church that the Earth was at the physical center of the Universe:

Has anyone ever proved that it's not?
Has the Church ever declared infallibly that it's not?

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  columba on Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:10 pm

Lourdes wrote:
Another thing that troubles me is this "People of God".

Has anyone here read the series of books by Fr. Johannes Dormann entitled The Theological Journey of Pope John Paul II? Now those books would make an excellent thread. But if I am the only one to have read them, there goes that!

Yes the "People of God" and "The Church of Christ." Never a clear definition given as to what we're meant to believe by these terms.

I haven't read that series of books and I keep putting off reading such as they have an unsettling effect on me. I have to overcome this. study

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Guest on Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:12 pm

While the language/wording of what Jehanne posted can be misleading without context, it should be noted that statement regarding Galileo is from a group of Cardinals, and not the Holy Father. It does not qualify as an infallible statement.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Guest on Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:22 pm

Lourdes wrote:Has anyone here read the series of books by Fr. Johannes Dormann entitled The Theological Journey of Pope John Paul II? Now those books would make an excellent thread. But if I am the only one to have read them, there goes that!! study
They all seem to be out of print... where did you find yours? I came across the titles a while ago, and they do seem like an interesting read but I haven't been able to come across the series anywhere.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Jehanne on Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:39 pm

MarianLibrarian wrote:While the language/wording of what Jehanne posted can be misleading without context, it should be noted that statement regarding Galileo is from a group of Cardinals, and not the Holy Father. It does not qualify as an infallible statement.

Note true. Pope Urban VIII did sign the verdict against Galileo, but for whatever reason, three Cardinals did not sign it. The Pope is infallible when he meets the conditions set forth for Papal infallibility per Vatican 1; else, we have to look to the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium of the Church (which is also infallible.) Popes can err; it happened prior to Galileo (Pope John XXII) and it has happened since.

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  DeSelby on Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:50 pm

columba wrote:
It was once the theological teaching of the Church that the Earth was at the physical center of the Universe:

Has anyone ever proved that it's not?

My understanding of it is that, no, no one has proved that it's not. It's very unpopular to say so, though. The knives come out, etc.

Let that be a topic for another thread, if it is to be gone into at length, so as not to distract from the main thrust of this one.

DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Jehanne on Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:59 pm

Lourdes wrote:As I have said, I am not tryng to be a smart aleck, but this is the problem that I have with what you have posted, Jehanne.

If the Church (and the Bible) was wrong with that, what confidence can I have that She is correct in any other infallible statement She has made? If She was mistaken once before, it is not possible that She can be mistaken again? Of what use then is the Church?

I am only posting this to show how my mind works, not to be a smart aleck.

The Magisterium is infallible just as the One and Triune God is immutable, but unlike the latter, it just not infallible all the time. If such were the case, then the Pope would be perfect, which would mean that he was not a human being, but the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ. The Pope's imperfection is just proof that he is a fallible human being. His charisma of infallibility stems not from him, but from the immutable God, the Holy Spirit. Because he is human, he is incapable of exercising that charisma all the time in everything that he does, but only under special circumstances and only when he so indicates.

The verdict against Galileo did not meet the criteria for Papal infallibility.

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  tornpage on Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:48 pm

Mike wrote:

As you know, this is not some “typo” in the CCC and elsewhere; it’s been around a very long time; and if you think Pius IX “denied” this teaching, I’m beginning to realize he did not

The ordinary magisterium did not teach this stuff for almost two millenia. Even if you want to say Pius IX taught it - who before him? In Pius IX it is ambiguous if taught or believed by him. It's not in St. Thomas, nor St. Augustine (to my knowledge). Show me any of the fathers who believed it applied post advent of Christ; it clearly was not a consensus of the fathers (if you find one, find two or three even). It's not in the Roman Catechism. It's far different from baptism of desire.

In other words, it could be a mark of the beast "in the latter days."

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  tornpage on Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:53 pm

Columba, Lourdes,

It's good we're discussing this stuff. You usually don't see this level of discourse without fingers starting to point and tempers flaring.

This is the way it should be.


tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  tornpage on Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:55 pm

As to geocentrism: I think it does cause one to look honestly at the Church's Infallibility and/or Indefectibility. I think it should be another thread though.

My understanding of it is that, no, no one has proved that it's not. It's very unpopular to say so, though. The knives come out, etc.

I think that's accurate, DeSelby.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  tornpage on Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:56 pm

Maybe we need a "definitions" forum. A good place to start would be indefectibility.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  tornpage on Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:32 am

Mike,

Btw, I’ve come to a solution (in my own mind) to this “implicit faith” business … I’m still mulling it over, but it suddenly makes sense and ties in with everything I’ve been saying on justification. In fact, I bet you know where I’m going with this … we’ll see. Hint, Aquinas played a major part in settling this for me. I’ll get to it when I can.

That would be great, but first you have to establish that "explicit faith" is not the Gospel truth. To go back to the Athanasian Creed again: it is infallible, and it says one must have the Catholic faith. So far, your only argument is that it requires a higher level of faith than merely a rudimentary knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation. As I pointed out, that argument merely indicates a higher level of sophistication is "necessary," and hardly indicates that less than explicit faith in these things is sufficient to have the "Catholic faith." I also believe that argument is not true to the text of the Creed, though it can base itself on an argument which can point to language in the Creed - but I think it's tenuous and weak.

If the Creed is infallible, and says it is necessary to believe in the Trinity and Incarnation for salvation - the case is closed, I think. So you have this hurdle first.

Father Harrison, in his implicit faith is "proximate to heresy" article, points to Scriptural passages supporting "explicit faith" in Christ, and more importantly, argues impressively for the "silence" of Scripture surrounding such statements and their obvious implications. I believe we have the same situation with the Magisterium for 18 or 19 centuries - you do not have an overabundance of statements regarding the necessity of explicit faith in Christ because it is fairly obvious in light of the statements you do have: the "silence" of the Magisterium on implicit faith is eloquent. I know Feeneyites argued the same way as to the necessity of baptism, but with baptism of desire you had a chorus behind the Magisterium, or backstage watching the Magisterium, that was consistent in recognizing baptism of desire (St. Thomas, etc.) - and you have the Solemn Magisterium at Trent ("or desire thereof").

Implicit faith is a whole other ball game.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Lourdes on Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:43 pm

columba wrote:
Lourdes wrote:
Another thing that troubles me is this "People of God".

Has anyone here read the series of books by Fr. Johannes Dormann entitled The Theological Journey of Pope John Paul II? Now those books would make an excellent thread. But if I am the only one to have read them, there goes that!

Yes the "People of God" and "The Church of Christ." Never a clear definition given as to what we're meant to believe by these terms.

I haven't read that series of books and I keep putting off reading such as they have an unsettling effect on me. I have to overcome this. study

Columba, they have an unsettling effect on me too. This particular series of books had me dumbfounded. I originally picked them up hoping to better understand John Paul II and how he ticked, enabling me to maybe get past the disdain I have for him (sorry if this offends anyone, but it was on account of him that I walked away from the Church a very long time ago).

Thanks for adding the term "Church of Christ" - another biggie. I know what I think of when that term is used, but that is not what they mean. And, if you read the books by Fr. Dormann, you will understand this better.

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Lourdes on Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:49 pm

MarianLibrarian wrote:
Lourdes wrote:Has anyone here read the series of books by Fr. Johannes Dormann entitled The Theological Journey of Pope John Paul II? Now those books would make an excellent thread. But if I am the only one to have read them, there goes that!! study
They all seem to be out of print... where did you find yours? I came across the titles a while ago, and they do seem like an interesting read but I haven't been able to come across the series anywhere.

Marian, get them from the Angelus Press. That is where I got mine. They are often on sale. They are, as you say, an interesting read; they are a shocking read as well.

The best thing about the books is that the priest-author isn't a traditional at all - so no one can blame him for being biased. I looked in vain on the internet to see if anyone ever wrote a rebuttle of these books, but, no. They were just ignored. I guess they were hoping the books would just disappear. I hate to say this, but the fact that not one bishop or cardinal in the Church (at least to my knowledge) ever called John Paul II to task over his encyclicals boggles my mind and is quite an indictment on how far gone the Church is at this point.

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Lourdes on Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:56 pm

tornpage wrote:Columba, Lourdes,

It's good we're discussing this stuff. You usually don't see this level of discourse without fingers starting to point and tempers flaring.

This is the way it should be.


That is because we are sincerely seeking and, speaking for myself, am certainly not here to push an agenda or enflame anyone. Maybe it is a good thing that this thread stays where it is where it will attract the least amount of attention of anyone who might be prowling about looking to encite and start a battle.

I just want the truth. And I don't want square pegs forced into round holes. If the peg doesn't fit, admit it, but don't force it in order to make the Church look good. As I have read in many places, God has no need of our lies and rationalizations. Either the Church stands by Herself or not.

And I want to know where my thinking is wrong so that I can understand the Church today. It is very hard for me because my foundation is pre-VII.

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Lourdes on Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:59 pm

DeSelby wrote:
columba wrote:
It was once the theological teaching of the Church that the Earth was at the physical center of the Universe:

Has anyone ever proved that it's not?

My understanding of it is that, no, no one has proved that it's not. It's very unpopular to say so, though. The knives come out, etc.

Let that be a topic for another thread, if it is to be gone into at length, so as not to distract from the main thrust of this one.

At the risk of sounding like an air head and dumb Dora, I don't believe that the sun is the center either. I think the Earth is. If anyone knows that this has been proved either one way or the other, I am open to hearing more.

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  DeSelby on Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:52 pm

Lourdes wrote:At the risk of sounding like an air head and dumb Dora, I don't believe that the sun is the center either. I think the Earth is. If anyone knows that this has been proved either one way or the other, I am open to hearing more.

Lourdes, everyone,
I'll create a separate thread for Geocentricism that will include some articles by Robert Sungenis on the topic. That way this thread won't become diverted, as it is going along quite smoothly, and I wish it to continue in this way. Hopefully by later this evening I'll post it...

Carry on now!

DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  columba on Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:10 pm

Lourdes how many books are in the series? I see part 1 and 2 on amazon UK for £10 each.
Marian, there's part 1 on amazon US for $10 plus postage.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  columba on Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:13 pm

DeSelby wrote:
Lourdes wrote:At the risk of sounding like an air head and dumb Dora, I don't believe that the sun is the center either. I think the Earth is. If anyone knows that this has been proved either one way or the other, I am open to hearing more.

Lourdes, everyone,
I'll create a separate thread for Geocentricism that will include some articles by Robert Sungenis on the topic. That way this thread won't become diverted, as it is going along quite smoothly, and I wish it to continue in this way. Hopefully by later this evening I'll post it...

Carry on now!

Looking forward to reading this Sungenis article DeSelby.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Lourdes on Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:24 pm

columba wrote:Lourdes how many books are in the series? I see part 1 and 2 on amazon UK for £10 each.
Marian, there's part 1 on amazon US for $10 plus postage.

Three. Why don't you just order it from Angelus Press? Here: http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/default.php?quicklist=0&searchcat%5b1%5d%5b0%5d=52

It's on sale - all three volumes.

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Lourdes on Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:25 pm

columba wrote:
DeSelby wrote:
Lourdes wrote:At the risk of sounding like an air head and dumb Dora, I don't believe that the sun is the center either. I think the Earth is. If anyone knows that this has been proved either one way or the other, I am open to hearing more.

Lourdes, everyone,
I'll create a separate thread for Geocentricism that will include some articles by Robert Sungenis on the topic. That way this thread won't become diverted, as it is going along quite smoothly, and I wish it to continue in this way. Hopefully by later this evening I'll post it...

Carry on now!

Looking forward to reading this Sungenis article DeSelby.

Me too.

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  tornpage on Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:33 am

Lourdes,

I just want the truth. And I don't want square pegs forced into round holes. If the peg doesn't fit, admit it, but don't force it in order to make the Church look good. As I have read in many places, God has no need of our lies and rationalizations. Either the Church stands by Herself or not.

Beautiful. Could not have said it better myself.

The Church will always stand. The question is: where is the Church?

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  tornpage on Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:11 am

St. Paul said somewhere that what happened to the Jews/Israel happened to them "as an ensample" (I am remembering the KJV language), and I wonder all the time about how far to carry those "ensamples."

If you look at the history of the Jews/Israel, and compare the Church to it . . . it's scary.

I was just reading Jeremiah 23 and 24. The heading to Chapter 24 says, "Under the type of good and bad figs, he foretells the restoration of the Jews that had been carried away captive with Jechonias, and the desolation of those that were left behind" - i.e., those who remained in Jerusalem. My gosh . . . think about that.

In 2 Macchabees, there's a fascinating reference to the Ark in Chapter 2, I believe around the time of the captivity and the "good and bad figs" of Jeremiah 24:

A continuation of the second letter. Of Jeremias' hiding the ark at the time of the captivity. The author's preface.

[1] Now it is found in the descriptions of Jeremias the prophet, that he commanded them that went into captivity, to take the fire, as it hath been signified, and how he gave charge to them that were carried away into captivity. [2] And how he gave them the law that they should not forget the commandments of the Lord, and that they should not err in their minds, seeing the idols of gold, and silver, and the ornaments of them. [3] And with other such like speeches, he exhorted them that they would not remove the law from their heart. [4] It was also contained in the same writing, how the prophet, being warned by God, commanded that the tabernacle and the ark should accompany him, till he came forth to the mountain where Moses went up, and saw the inheritance of God. [5] And when Jeremias came thither he found a hollow cave: and he carried in thither the tabernacle, and the ark, and the altar of incense, and so stopped the door.

[1] "The descriptions"... That is, the records or memoirs of Jeremias, a work that is now lost.

[6] Then some of them that followed him, came up to mark the place: but they could not find it. [7] And when Jeremias perceived it, he blamed them, saying: The place shall be unknown, till God gather together the congregation of the people, and receive them to mercy.

One of the things that has kept me from sedevacantism is the thought that Our Mother, the Church, would have told us, her children to live during these terrible times, that these times were coming; I can't believe that she would have left us without guidance. The Church never warned us that we would have to flee her, or rather a "Newchurch" or impostor pretending to be her (Apocalypse 18:4). Does Our Father mean to destroy the New Israel, the Church, and the New Temple, as he destroyed Israel and the Old Temple?

But did she not warn us? I think of Our Lady, her manifestations, La Sallette, Fatima - the Third Secret. If it were not for the Rosary and prayer, I'd be done, 'cause the Novus Ordo and its sacramental graces are doing nothing for me, and this is, of course, extremely troubling.

The other thing that has helped me stave off sedevacantism is Leo XIII's great encyclical, Satis Cognitum. I'm always balancing what it says against these intuitions and feelings about various "signs" I see from reading Scripture and just putting things together - like Paul VI's giving away the papal tiara (my gosh, talk about symbolism), etc.

I remain here largely because I hope these things can be explored without name calling, accusations, charges of heresy . . . because I have a lot of questions. So much of the Bible seems to tie these times in with the prophecies. As a Catholic I am duly conscious of the danger of private interpretations, but still . . . the parallels are extremely uncanny, and powerful.

I hope we can comfort each other and help each other understand this stuff, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost and Our Mother.

Because I've got issues and questions, and, like Lourdes, I simply want the truth.




tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Lourdes on Sat Jun 11, 2011 12:41 pm

The question is: where is the Church?

Torn Page, I have been asking that question all week! I'm serious - all week long. I see the Four Marks nowhere...not even where they are supposed to be.

Perhaps it is just like Our Lord on the way to Calvary. They said He was unrecognizable so beaten and torn He was. His Church is unrecognizable too. For someone like myself who remembers a Church that no longer exists, not even in the traditional circles (they may have the traditional Mass and Sacraments, but something essential is missing in all of them...I know...I've made the rounds), this present crisis is that much harder to bear. Crying or Very sad

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Lourdes on Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:05 pm

tornpage wrote:St. Paul said somewhere that what happened to the Jews/Israel happened to them "as an ensample" (I am remembering the KJV language), and I wonder all the time about how far to carry those "ensamples."

If you look at the history of the Jews/Israel, and compare the Church to it . . . it's scary.

I was just reading Jeremiah 23 and 24. The heading to Chapter 24 says, "Under the type of good and bad figs, he foretells the restoration of the Jews that had been carried away captive with Jechonias, and the desolation of those that were left behind" - i.e., those who remained in Jerusalem. My gosh . . . think about that.

In 2 Macchabees, there's a fascinating reference to the Ark in Chapter 2, I believe around the time of the captivity and the "good and bad figs" of Jeremiah 24:

A continuation of the second letter. Of Jeremias' hiding the ark at the time of the captivity. The author's preface.

[1] Now it is found in the descriptions of Jeremias the prophet, that he commanded them that went into captivity, to take the fire, as it hath been signified, and how he gave charge to them that were carried away into captivity. [2] And how he gave them the law that they should not forget the commandments of the Lord, and that they should not err in their minds, seeing the idols of gold, and silver, and the ornaments of them. [3] And with other such like speeches, he exhorted them that they would not remove the law from their heart. [4] It was also contained in the same writing, how the prophet, being warned by God, commanded that the tabernacle and the ark should accompany him, till he came forth to the mountain where Moses went up, and saw the inheritance of God. [5] And when Jeremias came thither he found a hollow cave: and he carried in thither the tabernacle, and the ark, and the altar of incense, and so stopped the door.

[1] "The descriptions"... That is, the records or memoirs of Jeremias, a work that is now lost.

[6] Then some of them that followed him, came up to mark the place: but they could not find it. [7] And when Jeremias perceived it, he blamed them, saying: The place shall be unknown, till God gather together the congregation of the people, and receive them to mercy.

One of the things that has kept me from sedevacantism is the thought that Our Mother, the Church, would have told us, her children to live during these terrible times, that these times were coming; I can't believe that she would have left us without guidance. The Church never warned us that we would have to flee her, or rather a "Newchurch" or impostor pretending to be her (Apocalypse 18:4). Does Our Father mean to destroy the New Israel, the Church, and the New Temple, as he destroyed Israel and the Old Temple?

But did she not warn us? I think of Our Lady, her manifestations, La Sallette, Fatima - the Third Secret. If it were not for the Rosary and prayer, I'd be done, 'cause the Novus Ordo and its sacramental graces are doing nothing for me, and this is, of course, extremely troubling.

The other thing that has helped me stave off sedevacantism is Leo XIII's great encyclical, Satis Cognitum. I'm always balancing what it says against these intuitions and feelings about various "signs" I see from reading Scripture and just putting things together - like Paul VI's giving away the papal tiara (my gosh, talk about symbolism), etc.

I remain here largely because I hope these things can be explored without name calling, accusations, charges of heresy . . . because I have a lot of questions. So much of the Bible seems to tie these times in with the prophecies. As a Catholic I am duly conscious of the danger of private interpretations, but still . . . the parallels are extremely uncanny, and powerful.

I hope we can comfort each other and help each other understand this stuff, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost and Our Mother.

Because I've got issues and questions, and, like Lourdes, I simply want the truth.


"If it were not for the Rosary and prayer, I'd be done, 'cause the Novus Ordo and its sacramental graces are doing nothing for me, and this is, of course, extremely troubling. "

I know. I attend the novus ordo too, and I feel like I am spiritually starving and am getting nil graces. It is not that I do not try; I do, each Sunday I put my all into the Mass, but always feel like I've been short-changed when it is all over. Or that I just plunked down a lot of money for a meal in a restaurant only to discover I could have cooked a better one myself, and for a fraction of the price.

For myself, I will be honest, if it wasn't for Our Lady of Lourdes and St. Bernadette, and St. Padre Pio, I think I would be sitting home and have given up on the Church.

As for sedevacantism, what stops me is: what if they are wrong? I can't take that chance since the salvation of my soul is at stake. Personally, I think that the greater percentage of what they say and write is correct, but I can't conceive of Our Lord leaving His Church (since the sedevacantists say that there are no longer any bishops or priests due to defects in the rites). And I think that there must be more to the story than we know or are aware of. Also, I didn't see Cardinal Siri jumping ship, or any of the other known traditional Cardinals during the sixties, seventies and into the eighties.

On the other hand...I am an alien in the novus ordo Church.

It is so good to know that I am not alone in my anguish. That is one of the worst things, feeling so alone and isolated.

We must pray for each other. Tomorrow is Pentecost, the birthday of our Church! How I have been praying to the Holy Ghost for guidance and clarification. I will remember all of you here in my Mass intention tomorrow.

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  columba on Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:08 pm

Tornpage wrote:
I remain here largely because I hope these things can be explored without name calling, accusations, charges of heresy . . . because I have a lot of questions. So much of the Bible seems to tie these times in with the prophecies. As a Catholic I am duly conscious of the danger of private interpretations, but still . . . the parallels are extremely uncanny, and powerful.

My sentiments too and likewise concerning the Novus Ordo Mass and homilies I feel I've wronged God by being there and partaking in such a fiasco. It's got to the stage where if certain priests come out to say Mass I leave, go home, say the rosary and make a spiritual communion.
like Lourdes said, "As for sedevacantism, what stops me is: what if they are wrong? I can't take that chance since the salvation of my soul is at stake."

I'm relying much on the words of St. Louis de Montfort “If you say the Rosary faithfully unto death, I do assure you that, in spite of the gravity of your sins, ‘you will receive a never-fading crown of glory.”

I've no doubts that the Church is not dead. If it can't be seen clearly then something is eclisping it. Eclispses do pass though.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  tornpage on Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:32 pm

Columba,

My sentiments too and likewise concerning the Novus Ordo Mass and homilies I feel I've wronged God by being there and partaking in such a fiasco. It's got to the stage where if certain priests come out to say Mass I leave, go home, say the rosary and make a spiritual communion. like Lourdes said, "As for sedevacantism, what stops me is: what if they are wrong? I can't take that chance since the salvation of my soul is at stake."

In some ways the issue of sedevacantism is abstract and theoretical: one doesn't have to reach a decision on it. I think one could go the SSPX route (just walk away from the NO and attend SSPX chapels), but I think many of them, including their shepherds, are very inconsistent: the NO is harmful in se, and yet the pope[s] who produced it and impose this harmful and "evil" discipline on the Church are still popes. Since our faith is above all else the ultimate truth, as well as the means of salvation, I reject such an absurd position, which violates the foundational principles of truth (such as the law of contradiction) - the SSPX is not for me.

They also subscribe to the "heresy" or "position proximate to heresy" (Father Harrison) of "implicit faith," and, again, "since our faith is above all else the ultimate truth . . ."

Of course, we are in the midst here of an ongoing dialogue on "implicit faith," and I await MRyan's response on that topic, which, knowing him, will be well reasoned and at the least interesting, and, which, of course, I will give due and proper respect and consideration to.

Right now, I think it heresy . . . at the least, I think it error - MRyan does too (think it error). It is an error taught by almost all the bishops in union with the pope, and is in the catechism and the compendium. In light of the Church's indefectibility, for me this poses a big problem as to whether "Newchurch," the "Conciliar" Church, is in fact the Catholic Church. Which is why I not only cannot dismiss sedevacantism, but also lean towards it.

What if one is wrong as to the conclusion? It is not a rejection of Catholic truth, but, at worse, an erroneous application of such truth to fact - an error of fact, not belief. You, columba, or I, were we to reach that conclusion, would reach it in good faith, seeking the mercy of Christ and the guidance of Mary and the Holy Ghost.

It is not a light decision, which is why I am virtually inviting anyone out their to come forward and show me where I am wrong. If they show me I am, I will be eternally grateful. If they can't, well . . . that would help me know what I need to do.

On the other hand, as I said, one need not come to a decision on the sede issue I think. I think I have to because I think truth constrains one to. But one doesn't have to for the sake of their salvation, I think.

Rasha said this was worse then the Arian crisis. The faithful during those times abandoned the churches of the apostates, and prayed. Like the faithful French Catholics during the obscene French revolution, I assume they thereby lost access to the sacraments. They did not lose the faith, and were not damned for violating the precepts of the Church.

St. Basil said of the Arian crisis (I lifted this from cathinfo, http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=527718) :

"Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitudes, with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven." Ep. 92.

Four years after he writes:

"Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assemble in deserts,—a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid the most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because they will have no part in the wicked Arian leaven." Ep. 242. Again: "Only one offence is now vigorously punished,—an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries, and transported into deserts. The people are in lamentation, in continual tears at home and abroad. There is a cry in the city, a cry in the country, in the roads, in the deserts. Joy and spiritual cheerfulness are no more; our feasts are turned into mourning; our houses of prayer are shut up, our altars deprived of the spiritual worship." Ep. 243.

I don't see how I can continue to attend the NO - even without resolving the pope issue - and only hope that such a decision would be similarly justified.

And I have nowhere else to turn right now.


tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  tornpage on Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:36 pm

I said it was taught by almost all the bishops - i.e, "implicit faith."

I'd love someone, anyone, to point to just a single bishop who rejects implicit faith.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  MRyan on Sun Jun 12, 2011 4:00 pm

tornpage wrote:
Of course, we are in the midst here of an ongoing dialogue on "implicit faith," and I await MRyan's response on that topic, which, knowing him, will be well reasoned and at the least interesting, and, which, of course, I will give due and proper respect and consideration to.

Right now, I think it heresy . . . at the least, I think it error - MRyan does too (think it error). It is an error taught by almost all the bishops in union with the pope, and is in the catechism and the compendium. In light of the Church's indefectibility, for me this poses a big problem as to whether "Newchurch," the "Conciliar" Church, is in fact the Catholic Church. Which is why I not only cannot dismiss sedevacantism, but also lean towards it.
Tornpage, just for the record; I do not believe "implicit faith" is an "error taught by almost all the bishops in union with the pope, and is in the catechism and the compendium".

My personal belief that God will reveal to every one of His elect the "essential" truths of the mysteries of Christ does not mean that I "reject" as erroneous the teaching that says that this same Truth may be implicit in the act of supernatural faith in the [Triune] God, as a Rewarder to those who fear Him.

St. Thomas will support me on this (whether he likes it or not!), as you shall see.

Thanks for your patience ... I'm almost there but have had many distractions. Besides, when I sit down with The Mysteries of Christianity by Scheeben, I tend to put all else aside ... and tend to lose all interest in these discussions ... but I eventually come around. But, I have had a lot of other stuff on my plate.

I am now convinced that his Dogmatik (upon which the renowned late 19th century "A Manual of Catholic Theology" was written, and endorsed by Cardinal Manning who wrote the "Forward"), and also containing the "implicit faith" doctrine, is entirely consistent with his The Mysteries of Christianity.

That will not impress you, but it impresses me. More to follow.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Guest on Sun Jun 12, 2011 4:58 pm

Tornpage, Lourds, and Columba, I sympathize with your plight. I just came from the NO mass and I don't know the sing songy melodies are the most irritating thing for me. But on the other hand it came to me that it really is the Novus Ordo Saeculorum mass. I mean the conspiracy thing New World Order(NWO), BUT it also dawned on me it is still the mass! God has allowed us to be scandalized by the important and accidentals but the essentials are still there!

My reflections on the crisis in the Church, is that the Church is now Job-- that means us too. We seem to be cursed and God has hide his face. I see SSPX and Sedes are like Job's "friends" trying to seduce him with all kinds of arguments.

---Also I see the Church like Samson. All his enemies could never defeat him till they shaved his head and then blinded him. Samson failed because he had relation with Delila ( the world-NWO) I think most of us can agree at least that the hair is "explicit faith in Jesus Lord and Savior".

----Another thing I was thinking about is how the Church is living the life of Christ. It was hide in catacombs-Like the hidden life of Our Lord. Then with Christendom it preach the Gospel to the whole world.

The Protestant reformation was like the Jn 6 Bread of Life discourse, "this is a hard saying" and many stopped following him. The enlightenment was the betrayal of Judas.
I think now is the passion. We (Tornpage, Lourds, and Columba) are asked to help carry the cross. The apostles didn't understand. The Jesus they knew was not this "worm" of a man left by God to humiliation and confusion. This is our calling, if we have the stomach for it?

I find SSPX and Sedes are cowards! They took the easy way out! sure it's easy to just start your own "Church"; start from scratch but they abandoned the Church at Her weakest! like Jesus in his passion. As Columba said the Rosary is the way we hold on to the hand of our Lady because I am sure St. John was a little reluctant to go, if he hadn't held our Lady's hand.

Oh yeah the Job analogy lines up with the vision of Pope Leo XIII that Satan would tempt the Church for a 100 years.

As for the bishops being deceived, I think they are but not with malice, this is KEY! They are spiritually blind. I know I was. I think I discovered all this stuff on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus because of challenging a Jehovah Witness to pray to know the whole truth and follow it. I said you pray it and I will too an if God is who we think he is, he will show us. I was a little cocky because I thought I had the WHOLE Catholic Faith but I kept my part of the bargain. I said that prayer for a long time everyday in case I meet the JW again. Now here I am !! Very Happy Rolling Eyes

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  tornpage on Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:00 pm

Those quotes I lifted regarding St. Basil were from the Catholic Answers forum, not Cathinfo.

Cowboy,

I respect your view. I've been in NO land for years and years. Yes, the Passion of Our Lord; I've felt the same way you do now. I too think about how all of the apostles fled except John, and think John did the right thing. But . . . Our Lord never spoke heresy, not even from the Cross. I am not fleeing to avoid discomfort. I've been discomforted for years and years. It's not that.

I speak with emotion, but I am discussing this rationally, and open to someone showing me the flaws in my argument.

I am following prop A, to prop B, and drawing the necessary conclusions. I think.

As I said, I respect your view, and the contrary views of many good faith Catholics in these days.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  tornpage on Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:04 pm

My personal belief that God will reveal to every one of His elect the "essential" truths of the mysteries of Christ does not mean that I "reject" as erroneous the teaching that says that this same Truth may be implicit in the act of supernatural faith in the [Triune] God, as a Rewarder to those who fear Him.

Ok, I understand the distinction. I think.

Bottom line: you don't think it's "error." As with baptism, you think all of the elect will have explicit faith (as you think they will be baptized), but salvation with implicit faith and baptism of desire are not error.

As to baptism of desire, I agree with you.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  columba on Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:08 pm

Tornpage wrote:
On the other hand, as I said, one need not come to a decision on the sede issue I think. I think I have to because I think truth constrains one to. But one doesn't have to for the sake of their salvation, I think.

I believe that. But being in no-mans-land is an awful place to be. I would gladly jump into the NO Church with both feet if my conscience would permit it and to be honest I have already tried that with the only fruits being a terrible sense of betrayal of Our Lord Himself (like a Judas willing to trade respect and honour of God for the comfort of human fellowship). Even at the expense of my own soul (should I be wrong about the NO Mass in particular) I can't bring myself to do this anymore. (Talk about working out ones salvation in fear and trembling). But for devotion to the Blessed Virgin, the angels and saints I do believe my circumstance would be pretty well hopeless.

Apart from all that, there are certain other dilemmas associated with the NO Mass (even allowing it be a valid Mass) which go beyond my own personal distaste on the matter, one of which is that of recommending to certain fallen-away family members a return to Mass. I would feel responsible for leading them into harms way whereby they could follow certain apostate priests (and I don't say that lightly) and laity on the path of total shipwreck.

"Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitudes, with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven." Ep. 92.

Four years after he writes:

"Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assemble in deserts,—a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid the most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because they will have no part in the wicked Arian leaven." Ep. 242. Again: "Only one offence is now vigorously punished,—an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries, and transported into deserts. The people are in lamentation, in continual tears at home and abroad. There is a cry in the city, a cry in the country, in the roads, in the deserts. Joy and spiritual cheerfulness are no more; our feasts are turned into mourning; our houses of prayer are shut up, our altars deprived of the spiritual worship." Ep. 243.


Tornpage, that quote from St. Basil says it all.

Cowboy wrote:
Tornpage, Lourds, and Columba, I sympathize with your plight. I just came from the NO mass and I don't know the sing songy melodies are the most irritating thing for me. But on the other hand it came to me that it really is the Novus Ordo Saeculorum mass. I mean the conspiracy thing New World Order(NWO), BUT it also dawned on me it is still the mass! God has allowed us to be scandalized by the important and accidentals but the essentials are still there!

I have made that same connection (rightly or wrongly) with the NWO and the NO Church. The former being like a secular manifestation of the spiritual bankruptcy of the latter.
I'm not particularly worried though about me/us being scandalized (as we probably deserve what we're getting for one reason or another) but it's the partaking (by my presence) in the profanation of all things holy that keeps me awake at night.
It's the probability that the essentials -the Holy Eucharist- actually are still there that's even more troubling.

I find SSPX and Sedes are cowards! They took the easy way out! sure it's easy to just start your own "Church"; start from scratch but they abandoned the Church at Her weakest! like Jesus in his passion. As Columba said the Rosary is the way we hold on to the hand of our Lady because I am sure St. John was a little reluctant to go, if he hadn't held our Lady's hand.

Hmm.. I think the coward accusation could be leveled both ways concerning those who stay within the NO and those who leave. It all depends on ones reasons/convictions.
The reason I'm not a sede is more to do with the big yellow streak going down my back and nothing at all to do with being a fan of the NO Church.
And may I add. the postings of many here also restrain me.

I do see the scriptural analogies both you and Tornpage have presented as being relevant to undetrstanding the present crisis, and having gone through many myself (including some there mentioned) I can still not come to any conclusions from these alone and would probably be foolish to do so.


Sorry MRyan for continuing the diversion. Will get straight back to implicit/explicit faith.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Lourdes on Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:02 pm

"ind SSPX and Sedes are cowards! They took the easy way out! sure it's easy to just start your own "Church"; start from scratch but they abandoned the Church at Her weakest! like Jesus in his passion. As Columba said the Rosary is the way we hold on to the hand of our Lady because I am sure St. John was a little reluctant to go, if he hadn't held our Lady's hand."

They are not cowards. The cowards are sitting in the pews with you and saying your Masses. Those are the cowards. Apathetic bunch too, if I might add. Most of them no longer even believe in the Blessed Sacrament. The easy way out is to go along to get along. That's the easy way out.

The majority of the people sitting in the SSPX and sede pews had to use their brains to get there. They had to read, think, pray an awful lot, maybe even some fasted, and then reach the best conclusion they could. In other words, it took work.

It takes no work to be a mindless automaton.

I don't know how old you are, and it sounds like you are a convert, but I have lived through it all. I remember the Church when She was sane. I have watched Her crumble the past fifty years and waited in vain for the Holy Father(s) to do something. They only made everything worse, especially John Paul II.

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Teaching Error

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum