|
1 members (Erik Jedvardsson),
579
guests, and
66
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5 |
Catholicism is way too messy.
I must be nuts for wanting to be a Byzantine Catholic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Athanasius,
Do not misunderstand. YOU may have such learning, but not all of us do. I have just recently learned this interesting bit of history. If you felt I was condescending, which it seems that is how you received my last message, than please know that was not my intention. None the less, the person from whom I have learned is just as learned as you and a Roman Catholic as well (I'm assuming you are Roman Catholic from your comments). I also stand by what I have recently learned. I may not have the extended education you do, but I trust the people from whom I learn.
Kyrie eleison,
Manuel I am not Roman Catholic. I'm Eastern Catholic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
I really don't need the history lesson. I hold two graduate degrees in theology-one of them in historical theology. I stand by what I've written. The language about the necessity to salvation demonstrates that the pope intended to raise this teaching to the level of dogma. The language of "every human creature" shows that the scope was intended to extend beyond the feud between the Pope Boniface and Philip the Fair. Dogmatic statements cannot "intend". They must explicitly state that a dogmatic definition is being sought, that this definition is irreformable in the future so that no new development may occur, that it is an article of faith to be held defintively by all the faithful, and must be addressed to all the faithful, by definition. Unam Sanctam fails in the last regard because the bull was not promulgated to all Christians, but to specific individuals. This dis-qualifies it as being qualified for classification as a de fide dogma. Its language clearly (at least it is clear to me) shows that its message was intended not to be limited to Philip the Fair. BTW-and I don't mean to be rude-I'm not particularly interested in your (relatively modern and Roman Catholic) definitions of what qualifies a document as being dogmatic (and yes, I'm aware that they are commonly held definitions among Roman Catholics-so I'm not attacking you personally). To me, the language of Unam Sanctam makes clear that Pope Boniface intended to bind the faithful by the teaching as a matter of dogma, in spite of the fact that the document might have been occasioned by his confrontation with Philip the Fair. Furthermore, I think we can all agree that a medieval pope did not have access to the decrees of a 19th century synod when determining the necessary criteria for a teaching to amount to dogma that binds the faithful. As I said previously, if claiming that the acceptance of a teaching to be necessary for salvation does not equate with considering it to be a matter of dogma, then nothing does.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Dogmatic statements cannot "intend". They must explicitly state that a dogmatic definition is being sought, that this definition is irreformable in the future so that no new development may occur, that it is an article of faith to be held defintively by all the faithful, and must be addressed to all the faithful, by definition. That's fatuous. If applied with rigor, half of the Tradition would fall outside the realm of dogma. Only half?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450 |
That is interesting since according to Denzinger it used to be considered ex-cathedra, I will have to look in my copy of Denzinger this weekend, when I am home and have the time. Denzinger lists the pertinent documents of the Church that are sources Catholic doctrine and dogma. I don't know what you mean by "considered ex-cathedra" by Denzinger. and Ludwigg Ott lists it as one of the proofs of the "de fide" dogma that outside the church no man will be saved. I don't have my copy of Ott at this time either, but the dogma of "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is not dependent upon Unam Sanctam. We are talking about whether or not the definition given in Unam Sanctam is de fide dogma. The necessity of the Church for salvation is a different issue that is de fide based on other documents. I think you may be confusing the topics. WHile they are related, they are distinct.
Last edited by danman916; 09/30/10 04:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209 |
I will have to look in my copy of Denzinger this weekend, when I am home and have the time. Denzinger lists the pertinent documents of the Church that are sources Catholic doctrine and dogma. I don't know what you mean by "considered ex-cathedra" by Denzinger. I gave the citation on the previous page of this thread. Here it is again for your reference, and as an aid to help you research into it: Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra" “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, 468-469.]
Last edited by ByzBob; 09/30/10 04:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Bob, It certainly does. Now it is my turn to clarify. My original question was an attempt to focus on the 'official,' standing of the IC, as you understand it. My purpose for bringing up Vatican 1's teaching on ex-cathedra statements was to further define what is meant by an ex-cathedra statement as such, and also to see what, if any, liberty is allowed for dissention from the definitions. It would seem that if we say there is some liberty allowed on this doctrine, it is somehow 'reformable,' and it should not fall under the purview of an ex-cathedra definition. Yet, it is listed as one in most, if not all, documented cases of ex-cathdra statements, see the Catholic Encylopedia for example (I'm not sure if this qualifies as an 'official,' listing). OK. I see what you are saying. The mitigations of invincible ignorance, the difference between an anathema and excommunication -- these factors do not in any way diminish the quality of the teaching as Truth. Rather, they have relevance only for the culpability of the Christian for denying that Truth in the eyes of God and the Church. For example, suppose someone does not believe the teaching of the IC because he or she has grown up with a different understanding of "original sin." The doctrine of invincible ignorance takes into account that circumstance. Your degree of culpability for not believing in the dogma is gauged by the level of free will you possess in the act of denying the dogma. If one is indoctrinated from birth that "original sin" means this, not that, it would be exceedingly difficult for that person to accept that, wouldn't you agree? That indoctrination has affected your full freedom to accept the dogma, and the Church nor God would hold you culpable for denying the dogma. Of course, there are many circumstances that could affect your free choice in the matter. To be certain, however, even if one were invincibly ignorant, if one's action is motivated by malice or obstinacy in anyway, one still has full culpability. Let me give a biblical example. In the OT, God gave certain laws, and the severity of the punishment for disobeying that law was determined by one's willfullness (i.e., the degree of freedom one had for disobeying the law). Does the variance in punishment mean that the Law of God is "reformable?" Jesus likewise taught the principle of invincible ignorance, asserting that only those who have heard and not believed will deserve eternal punishment. In another place, Jesus affirms the same principle through a parable, teaching that those who knew the master's will and disobeyed will receive a severe beating, while those who did not know will only receive a light sentence. Because of these degrees of culpability, are we to assume that the master's will is "reformable?" I hope that helps. Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Stuart, Even though many strong-arm tactics were used at Vatican I he Holy Spirit was still present How do we know that, without tautological reasoning? Or can the irregularities and lack of charity by which the council was governed by themselves be taken as evidence that the Holy Spirit was indeed lacking? There was no lack of charity. There were a few irregularities. But I ask that you don't go down this route. In the eyes of the Oriental Orthodox, the Fourth Ecum had very similar problems. If you want to judge the infallibility of a council by the conduct of some of its members, you'd better be prepared to get rid of a few of our cherished Ecumenical Councils from the list. Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Stuart, Like the doctrine of the temporal supremacy of the Pope (taught de fide for centuries), papal infallibility may eventually come to be seen as a doctrine conditioned by the history and culture of the time in which it was promoted. And like the temporal supremacy of the Pope, it will quietly be set aside, with everybody pretending it never happened. After Unam sanctam, please show us what other Pope "taught" the temporal supremacy of the Pope. Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Stuart, Bishop Lecourtier was a Neo-ultramontanist, not a member of the Minority Party.
1. What the heck is a "neo-ultra-montanist"? I explained it my the previous post. Was something lacking my explanation? 2. That someone on the other side also felt that the council lacked freedom makes my point, not yours. You seem to be working backwards from the assumption that Vatican I was ecumenical to finding reasons why it was so. Actually, your citation of Bishop Lecourtier defeats your purpose greatly. First of all, it was made by a neo-ultramontanist who was opposed to the Minority Party, so it did not prove your intent whatsoever to demonstrate the lack of freedom of the Minority Party. Secondly, the fact that a neo-ultramontanist who opposed the Minority Party would make such complaints demonstrates that the Minority Party indeed had much more influence at the Council than you pretend. Thirdly, every complaint he made in your excerpt were either directed against the influence of the Minority Party, or simply mere exaggerations (which I hope to demonstrate as this discussion progresses - if you so wish). Lastly, why would you even listen to the complaints of a neo-ultramontanist who was the staunchest opponent of the Minority Party? He complains against paragraphs added through the efforts of the Minority Party, and you lend support to him? That you want to use the comments of such a person seems to betray a certain disingenuousness to your rhetoric. You can't use the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle, because he was even more of an "enemy" to the Minority Party than the Pope and the other ultramontanists were. As the Mod does not seem to mind that we are discussing this in this thread, I invite you to state your reasons why you think the Council lacked freedom, or any other reason you can think of to try to diminish the authority of the Council. I hope to impress upon you that perhaps it is you who is actually trying to find artificial reasons and excuses to convince yourself that the Council is unacceptable. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Bob, Even some who accepted the council's definition complained of its irregularity. Cardinal Newman springs to mind as one critical of the lack of freedom, who nevertheless accepted the council. Can you specify what these irregularities were? I hope to clear up some common misconceptions and myths of the First Vatican Council, if you don't mind. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Athanasius, How about Unam Sanctam?
Here are three quotes from Unam Sanctam that demonstrate that it teaches temporal supremacy as a matter of dogma.
“We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal.”
"For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgment if it has not been good."
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” You do realize, I hope, that the only dogmatic teaching in the Bull is the last line. The rest of it -- his opinion at best. Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
As every Pope between Boniface and Pius XII upheld it, it's hard to disassociate the Church from that position (see what I mean about not always right but never wrong?). In 1958, Pius XII finally put a wooden stake through its heart by dismissing it in an offhanded statement that it was a necessary and perhaps inevitable doctrinal development, but not part of the transcendent deposit of faith. Upheld what? No one so far has demonstrated that the "temporal supremacy of the Pope" is a de fide teaching. All we have is your word.  In the meanwhile, just how many people did the Church condemn over the intervening centuries because they refused to acknowledge this transient bit of doctrinal development? How many? Have you been taking classes at Jack Chick university?  Blessings
Last edited by mardukm; 10/01/10 07:32 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Bob, Indeed, Unam Sanctum was believed to be ex-cathedra (prior to Vatican II that is):
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra" “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, 468-469.] Thank you for quoting that. It highlights the fact that the dogma in the decree is only the last line, not what went on before it. So Unam Sanctam does nothing to prove brother Stuart's claim that the "temporal supremacy of the Pope" is a de fide doctrine. Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209 |
Actually, your citation of Bishop Lecourtier defeats your purpose greatly. First of all, it was made by a neo-ultramontanist who was opposed to the Minority Party, so it did not prove your intent whatsoever to demonstrate the lack of freedom of the Minority Party. If I may. Where are you getting your information about Bishop Lecourtier? If he was not part of, and opposed to the minority party why did he write: "Our weakness at this moment comes neither from Scripture not the tradition of the Fathers nor the witness of the General Councils nor the evidence of history. It comes from our lack of freedom, which is radical. An imposing minority, representing the faith of more than one hundred million Catholics, that is, almost half of the entire church, is crushed beneath the yoke of a restrictive agenda, which contradicts conciliar traditions... The minority is crushed above all by the full weight of the supreme authority which oppresses it with the praise and encouragement it lavishes on the priests in the form of papal briefs.." He then went onto throw his conciliar documents in the Tiber and left Rome prematurely. Three years later Lecourtier had to pay the price for his gesture, and was dismissed as bishop of Montpellier. His words and actions seem to indicate that he was not part of the infallibilist party to any degree. What is the sources that contradicts that?
|
|
|
|
|
