Post by Pacelli on Jun 27, 2016 11:55:45 GMT -5
Orthopapaist wrote:
The trouble with your assertion is that you, and all of the others you cite cannot legally presume anything. Only the lawfully authorities of the Church can make authoritative judgments. We are the sheep of the Church, our duty is to hear and obey, not make legal presumptions.
If you determine, prior to the judgment of the Church that priest X is a heretic, then, yes, you must avoid him, and report him to the legitimate authority. In the meanwhile, your judgment of him, remains just that, your judgment. If another Catholic who goes to mass to this priest disagrees and does not believe he is a heretic, that Catholic is not bound to your view.
Since there has been no authoritative judgment against the Conciliar sect, every priest and layperson must be presumed to be of good will, and cannot be generally implicated in the charge of heresy and schism. Every Catholic must be treated individually, not as a group. This goes especially for priests, you cannot conclude that all priests are heretics or schismatics for remaining in the undeclared sect, as many believe the sect is indeed the Church, freeing them from the charge of schism, and heresy must be proven, not assumed.
The source you cite which attacks De Lugo's explanation, also builds their entire thesis on assumptions of guilt, not facts. If anyone wants to take it upon themselves to accuse another of heresy or schism, they must in justice substantiate it, or their judgment is rash and sinful. They must name the person and present the evidence against such a person, and always at every stage, try to excuse the person of guilt.
The theologians teach that it is permissible to assist at an illicit and sacrilegious Mass (i.e. one offered by a priest living in open concubinage!) and Cardinal de Lugo goes so far as to affirm that we may assist at the Mass of an un-condemned heretic."
I believe this is incorrect, they are to be avoided once they are made culpably aware of their errors, and if then they persist, even if in good faith, we presume legally they are non-Catholic, however if in good faith God may judge them innocent.
I believe this is incorrect, they are to be avoided once they are made culpably aware of their errors, and if then they persist, even if in good faith, we presume legally they are non-Catholic, however if in good faith God may judge them innocent.
The trouble with your assertion is that you, and all of the others you cite cannot legally presume anything. Only the lawfully authorities of the Church can make authoritative judgments. We are the sheep of the Church, our duty is to hear and obey, not make legal presumptions.
If you determine, prior to the judgment of the Church that priest X is a heretic, then, yes, you must avoid him, and report him to the legitimate authority. In the meanwhile, your judgment of him, remains just that, your judgment. If another Catholic who goes to mass to this priest disagrees and does not believe he is a heretic, that Catholic is not bound to your view.
Since there has been no authoritative judgment against the Conciliar sect, every priest and layperson must be presumed to be of good will, and cannot be generally implicated in the charge of heresy and schism. Every Catholic must be treated individually, not as a group. This goes especially for priests, you cannot conclude that all priests are heretics or schismatics for remaining in the undeclared sect, as many believe the sect is indeed the Church, freeing them from the charge of schism, and heresy must be proven, not assumed.
The source you cite which attacks De Lugo's explanation, also builds their entire thesis on assumptions of guilt, not facts. If anyone wants to take it upon themselves to accuse another of heresy or schism, they must in justice substantiate it, or their judgment is rash and sinful. They must name the person and present the evidence against such a person, and always at every stage, try to excuse the person of guilt.