|
Post by marcellusfaber on Nov 14, 2023 18:38:08 GMT -5
This argument is based on the tenth canon of Constantinople IV (The Eighth Oecumenical Council). The text of the canon is below: "No layman, monk, or cleric shall, previous to an examination and conciliar decision, leave the jurisdiction of his own patriarch, though he may pretend to know that the latter is guilty of a grave crime; nor shall he omit his name in the liturgy. The same rule is to be observed also by bishops and priests toward their patriarch. Whoever is found to act contrary to this decision of the holy council, shall, if a bishop or cleric, be suspended; if a monk or layman, excommunicated." I found the text of the canon here, since it is irritatingly not in the Enchiridion Symbolorum: sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/const4.aspPlease see my argument laid out as a syllogism below: Major premise. The Church is not able to promulgate harmful laws on account of Her secondary/disciplinary infallibility. Minor premise. The Church promulgated canon 10 of Constantinople IV against removing the name of one's patriarch without a judgement on pain of excommunication. But, were it sinful to attend the Mass of a priest naming a false prelate in the Mass, this would be an harmful law. Ergo, it cannot be sinful. I would be interested in everyone's thoughts. Can any weaknesses be seen in this argument?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 15, 2023 8:50:43 GMT -5
This argument is based on the tenth canon of Constantinople IV (The Eighth Oecumenical Council). The text of the canon is below: "No layman, monk, or cleric shall, previous to an examination and conciliar decision, leave the jurisdiction of his own patriarch, though he may pretend to know that the latter is guilty of a grave crime; nor shall he omit his name in the liturgy. The same rule is to be observed also by bishops and priests toward their patriarch. Whoever is found to act contrary to this decision of the holy council, shall, if a bishop or cleric, be suspended; if a monk or layman, excommunicated." I found the text of the canon here, since it is irritatingly not in the Enchiridion Symbolorum: sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/const4.aspPlease see my argument laid out as a syllogism below: Major premise. The Church is not able to promulgate harmful laws on account of Her secondary/disciplinary infallibility. Minor premise. The Church promulgated canon 10 of Constantinople IV against removing the name of one's patriarch without a judgement on pain of excommunication. But, were it sinful to attend the Mass of a priest naming a false prelate in the Mass, this would be an harmful law. Ergo, it cannot be sinful. I would be interested in everyone's thoughts. Can any weaknesses be seen in this argument? Yes, the argument is air tight. The law is no longer in force, but the principle remains as to understanding the mind of the Church on making a legal judgment (removing the patriarch's name on one's own non-authority prior to the judgment of the Church from the divine mysteries and office). The sedevacantist priest may justify their position that removing the name of the undeclared antipope prior to the judgment of the Church does not violate this principle, as Constantinople IV was making a law in regards to a certainly accepted patriarch, and our situation is dealing with a disputed pope which are two different things. The practice of the Catholic Church, however seems to me to favor naming the undeclared and un-judged criminal that is believed to be the lawful office-holder by the Church, which can be understood as the moral unanimity of Catholics, excluding the few outliers, until the criminal is judged by the Church and from that point, it would be sinful to name him any longer. The legal principle of Constantinople IV is clear: every judgment made by private individuals, even when they are correct, cannot be elevated to a legal and binding judgment.
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Nov 16, 2023 6:36:11 GMT -5
I have recently heard this judgment called a 'dogmatic fact'.
|
|
|
Post by marcellusfaber on Nov 16, 2023 6:47:31 GMT -5
I have recently heard this judgment called a 'dogmatic fact'. That attendance at so-called una cum Masses is grave matter?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 16, 2023 8:22:37 GMT -5
I have recently heard this judgment called a 'dogmatic fact'. The problem with these folks is that they appear to not grasp that dogmatic facts are judged by the Church, not private individuals.
|
|
|
Post by sdwright on Nov 16, 2023 10:14:21 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm being unclear. Dogmatic fact that Francis etc are not popes. And then this is used as the basis for barring from the sacraments and shunning.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 16, 2023 11:35:44 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm being unclear. Dogmatic fact that Francis etc are not popes. And then this is used as the basis for barring from the sacraments and shunning. For myself, I understood your meaning, as I have seen this claim before. It's made up junk theology, like so much else these days. The root of it is that private individual Catholics in some cases have come to think that their judgments are binding judgments that other Catholics must adhere to. They have privately concluded that a belief in Francis, for example, is inconsistent with Catholic belief, and therefore judge it as a dogmatic fact that Francis cannot be pope. Whether they are right or wrong about whether believing Francis is pope is inconsistent with the Faith is irrelevant. The problem is not about the truth of what they are saying regarding Francis, the problem is that they cannot create a dogmatic fact on their own non-authority and therefore bind Catholics to their judgment, by pretending that they can bind Catholics to something the Church has yet to bind them to believe. Dogmatic facts are facts that are judged by the Church and must be believed, therefore they bind Catholics, as these facts are essential to Catholic belief. The fact that Pius XII was pope, for example, is essential for belief, and it's a fact that has been judged by the Church, as the Catholic world peacefully submitted to him and accepted his teaching and laws. I will post some resources in the library for those not familiar with dogmatic facts and how they are determined.
|
|