"The Church can teach no error"

Started by Beatrice, October 19, 2014, 04:47:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

LoneWolfRadTrad

Quote from: Miriam_M on January 02, 2015, 01:06:54 PM
Quote from: LoneWolfRadTrad on January 02, 2015, 11:35:52 AM
???

But it wasn't dogmatic.

Dei Verbum
Lumen Gentium

I'm speaking of the titles here.   Whether the two documents were in fact dogmatic I will leave to others to argue, but I maintain that it's immaterial in terms of our practice of Catholicism.  If a Catholic knows the Truth, that Catholic is bound to practice and believe such Truth, despite official or formal opposition to that Truth from any source (if it becomes clear that Truth or the Deposit of Faith is being challenged).

It is my personal opinion that V2's thousands of flowery words were imaginative, confusing, contradictory, and perilous, and at the same time had no binding force.  (That comports with the designation, non-dogmatic, obviously.)  But that is not my particular area of theological scholarship.  I'm better trained in other areas.

I've also stated many times in the past here that I believe that the entire effort was an exercise in a kind of End-Times vision of a post-Apocalypse Church.  (New Earth, etc.)  I think it was a euphoric projection of JXXIII's personal idealization of "the Church in the Modern World" which could only happen in a very different modern world than the actual world of the early 1960's or the actual world of today.  The real world is (the real world's priorities are) incompatible with the fused vision of Church-Plus-World-In-Charming-Harmony that was projected in the V2 documents.

They're named "dogmatic" because they concern dogma, not because they themselves are dogmatic.  No.  They're not dogmatic, and only those who haven't tried reading them and only judge them by their title seem to make this claim.

Miriam_M

Quote from: LoneWolfRadTrad on January 02, 2015, 09:43:06 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on January 02, 2015, 01:06:54 PM
Quote from: LoneWolfRadTrad on January 02, 2015, 11:35:52 AM
???

But it wasn't dogmatic.

Dei Verbum
Lumen Gentium

I'm speaking of the titles here.   Whether the two documents were in fact dogmatic I will leave to others to argue, but I maintain that it's immaterial in terms of our practice of Catholicism.  If a Catholic knows the Truth, that Catholic is bound to practice and believe such Truth, despite official or formal opposition to that Truth from any source (if it becomes clear that Truth or the Deposit of Faith is being challenged).

It is my personal opinion that V2's thousands of flowery words were imaginative, confusing, contradictory, and perilous, and at the same time had no binding force.  (That comports with the designation, non-dogmatic, obviously.)  But that is not my particular area of theological scholarship.  I'm better trained in other areas.

I've also stated many times in the past here that I believe that the entire effort was an exercise in a kind of End-Times vision of a post-Apocalypse Church.  (New Earth, etc.)  I think it was a euphoric projection of JXXIII's personal idealization of "the Church in the Modern World" which could only happen in a very different modern world than the actual world of the early 1960's or the actual world of today.  The real world is (the real world's priorities are) incompatible with the fused vision of Church-Plus-World-In-Charming-Harmony that was projected in the V2 documents.

They're named "dogmatic" because they concern dogma, not because they themselves are dogmatic.  No.  They're not dogmatic, and only those who haven't tried reading them and only judge them by their title seem to make this claim.

I don't know if this is meant as some kind of insinuation about me, but if so, you couldn't be more wrong.  I have read both of these many times.  I am not making a claim that they are dogmatic, a point you seem to have trouble understanding.  Do not confuse me with others.

Fight your battles elsewhere, not with me.  If you have a problem with other posters on this or other fora "judging documents by their title," take it up with them and stop harassing me, please.

I am saying that their category of claimed 'dogmatism" is irrelevant to any Catholic practicing the Faith with integrity, if any such "dogma" is interpreted as license to oppose the deposit of Faith -- whether that's a correct or incorrect interpretation.

LoneWolfRadTrad

Quote from: Miriam_M on January 03, 2015, 11:25:58 AM
Quote from: LoneWolfRadTrad on January 02, 2015, 09:43:06 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on January 02, 2015, 01:06:54 PM
Quote from: LoneWolfRadTrad on January 02, 2015, 11:35:52 AM
???

But it wasn't dogmatic.

Dei Verbum
Lumen Gentium

I'm speaking of the titles here.   Whether the two documents were in fact dogmatic I will leave to others to argue, but I maintain that it's immaterial in terms of our practice of Catholicism.  If a Catholic knows the Truth, that Catholic is bound to practice and believe such Truth, despite official or formal opposition to that Truth from any source (if it becomes clear that Truth or the Deposit of Faith is being challenged).

It is my personal opinion that V2's thousands of flowery words were imaginative, confusing, contradictory, and perilous, and at the same time had no binding force.  (That comports with the designation, non-dogmatic, obviously.)  But that is not my particular area of theological scholarship.  I'm better trained in other areas.

I've also stated many times in the past here that I believe that the entire effort was an exercise in a kind of End-Times vision of a post-Apocalypse Church.  (New Earth, etc.)  I think it was a euphoric projection of JXXIII's personal idealization of "the Church in the Modern World" which could only happen in a very different modern world than the actual world of the early 1960's or the actual world of today.  The real world is (the real world's priorities are) incompatible with the fused vision of Church-Plus-World-In-Charming-Harmony that was projected in the V2 documents.

They're named "dogmatic" because they concern dogma, not because they themselves are dogmatic.  No.  They're not dogmatic, and only those who haven't tried reading them and only judge them by their title seem to make this claim.

I don't know if this is meant as some kind of insinuation about me, but if so, you couldn't be more wrong.  I have read both of these many times.  I am not making a claim that they are dogmatic, a point you seem to have trouble understanding.  Do not confuse me with others.

Fight your battles elsewhere, not with me.  If you have a problem with other posters on this or other fora "judging documents by their title," take it up with them and stop harassing me, please.

I am saying that their category of claimed 'dogmatism" is irrelevant to any Catholic practicing the Faith with integrity, if any such "dogma" is interpreted as license to oppose the deposit of Faith -- whether that's a correct or incorrect interpretation.

It wasn't  personal attack on you, no.  And you didn't write very clearly as to what you meant.

Maximilian

Quote from: Michael Wilson on January 01, 2015, 12:31:07 PM

There are several orthodox positions (although apparently contradictory); which attempt to explain the causes of the crisis; which one can hold, without denying the teachings of Vatican I.
The problem of denying one teaching, is that soon as a consequence another teaching has to be denied and then the loss of faith is not far behind.

But you ARE denying the teaching of Vatican II. Is the loss of faith for you "not far behind"?

You have denied the teaching of a full ecumenical council which was approved by over 2,000 Catholic bishops and then solemnly promulgated by the pope.

If Vatican II is false, then so is Vatican I. The one follows the other with complete logical and spiritual necessity.

GloriaPatri

Quote from: Maximilian on January 03, 2015, 11:43:11 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on January 01, 2015, 12:31:07 PM

There are several orthodox positions (although apparently contradictory); which attempt to explain the causes of the crisis; which one can hold, without denying the teachings of Vatican I.
The problem of denying one teaching, is that soon as a consequence another teaching has to be denied and then the loss of faith is not far behind.

But you ARE denying the teaching of Vatican II. Is the loss of faith for you "not far behind"?

You have denied the teaching of a full ecumenical council which was approved by over 2,000 Catholic bishops and then solemnly promulgated by the pope.

If Vatican II is false, then so is Vatican I. The one follows the other with complete logical and spiritual necessity.

You are basing this on the supposition that John XXIII and Paul VI were legitimate popes and not antipopes. But such a supposition has not been shown to be true.

TheKnightVigilant

Even if John XXIII and Paul VI were antipopes, it's still immensely difficult to square what happened at Vatican II with Papal Infallibility as defined at Vatican I. From a post I made elsewhere:

Quote
As trads, we all reject Vatican II, whether we are sedevacantists or not. But far as I can determine, in order to reject Vatican II it is actually necessary to believe that infallibility is subject to it's conformity with tradition and not absolute. This is how I see it:

-According to Vatican 1, the Pope is infallible and cannot err.

-At Vatican II, the Pope (or papal claimant) erred by contradicting tradition. We reject Vatican II on the basis that it contradicted tradition.

-This means that infallibility is restricted by tradition, since tradition is the benchmark through which we determine that Vatican II is heterodox and therefore not infallible.

-In other words, the only basis on which we can reject Vatican II (which was after all an ecumenical council which promulgated authoritative decrees) is that it contradicts tradition, even though all of the other criteria for infallibility were present.

-If we adhere to the sedevacantist position, we reject the last six Papal claimants as Popes for the very same reason - i.e. because they contradict tradition. That is how we determine that they are not infallible.

-We must necessarily therefore conclude that infallibility is subordinate to tradition and subject to it's conformity with tradition, for tradition is the only basis on which we can reject Vatican II or reject these men as legitimate Popes, since they otherwise fulfill all of the pre-requisites for infallibility.

I honestly don't see any way out of this. If Vatican II is false, or if the Vatican II Popes are false, then infallibility is subject to and exists only within the boundaries set by tradition. Ultimately this is the logic that all trads employ when they reject Vatican II or it's Popes.

GloriaPatri

No trad worth his salt thinks that papal infallability is not bound by Sacred Tradition. The pope's authority is supreme, not arbitrary.

And you're still supposing that John XXIII and Paul VI were legitimate authorities who could preside over an authoritative ecumenical council. If neither were pope to begin with than VII has no authority and it wouldn't matter what decrees it passed. Just like plenty of other robber councils in the history of the Church. 

Lynne

#67
Quote from: Gardener on January 01, 2015, 12:42:21 PM
I know John Lane makes an argument that Vatican 2 met the definition of an infallible teaching council. I know that the Church claims She can teach no error. I know Vatican 2 materially appeared to, might have, or did, teach error. Therefore, the Council was a Council of the not-Church. Such is a convenient syllogism for proving sedevacantism, but is a bit simplistic in light of history.

I think Fr. Hesse makes a compelling argument here:



and additionally, username Pax et Caritas makes a compelling argument here and here:


1) http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?s=5529e48a5a34bc7f8ad362f20ab4d282&p=4517380&postcount=12
2) http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?s=5529e48a5a34bc7f8ad362f20ab4d282&p=4517383&postcount=13

Username SemperFidelis makes a good point on the necessity of distinction:

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4564197&postcount=237

What an excellent talk!

I'm surprised CAF left those threads up. Surely Pax et Caritas has been banned by now.  :)

ETA: Oops, poor Pax et Caritas.
In conclusion, I can leave you with no better advice than that given after every sermon by Msgr Vincent Giammarino, who was pastor of St Michael's Church in Atlantic City in the 1950s:

    "My dear good people: Do what you have to do, When you're supposed to do it, The best way you can do it,   For the Love of God. Amen"

Michael Wilson

Quote from: Maximilian on January 03, 2015, 11:43:11 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on January 01, 2015, 12:31:07 PM

There are several orthodox positions (although apparently contradictory); which attempt to explain the causes of the crisis; which one can hold, without denying the teachings of Vatican I.
The problem of denying one teaching, is that soon as a consequence another teaching has to be denied and then the loss of faith is not far behind.

But you ARE denying the teaching of Vatican II. Is the loss of faith for you "not far behind"?

You have denied the teaching of a full ecumenical council which was approved by over 2,000 Catholic bishops and then solemnly promulgated by the pope.

If Vatican II is false, then so is Vatican I. The one follows the other with complete logical and spiritual necessity.
Ha! Max,
You are not going to bait me into another battle of wits with you; shame on you taking on an unarmed man!  Go back to Scotland and take a tour of some of the distilleries instead of torturing your old friend.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Maximilian

Quote from: Michael Wilson on January 05, 2015, 08:39:24 PM

Go back to Scotland and take a tour of some of the distilleries instead of torturing your old friend.

Ach no, laddie -- no true Scotsman would touch that stuff from a distillery.