alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Jan 14, 2024 15:17:47 GMT -5
Pacelli, I think maybe we are talking past each other and deviating into different territory. The thesis I presented, although it would help to explain the current crisis, has nothing to do with the current crisis. In fact, for the purposes of this conversation, we might as well pretend we are in 1950. The idea behind it is to explain if the church can prescribe an evil discipline, that’s it. Vatican II and its ramifications are all accidents. In my understanding, you haven’t provided any positive evidence, other than simply reaffirming the premise, that the explanation of the thesis is wrong. Yes, we agree that the church cannot prescribe evil discipline, if we understand discipline as the theologians have always understood, namely, as a indirect byproduct of doctrine. But when “discipline” is a byproduct of something else, it seems to me we have theological precedence to deny its infallibility. In fact, in such cenário, it would not be discipline in the strict sense anymore. Think of it as a “disciplinevacantism” (lol). Now, I’m not claiming I hold the thesis. I still don’t know if it is theologically sound (that’s why I asked for help here), but I don’t think you have provided any reason that it is wrong. An exemple of something that would invalidate de thesis is a authority claiming that discipline holds positive and direct infallibility, or that any attempt to separate doctrine from discipline is futile, or something similar. Let me take the opportunity to ask, you said you believe the Conciliar Church has taught heresy. Do you have any examples from magisterial acts of popes, excluding the documents of Vatican II? I’m talking about teaching of doctrine here, not just discipline and law.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 15, 2024 7:01:58 GMT -5
Pacelli , I think maybe we are talking past each other and deviating into different territory. The thesis I presented, although it would help to explain the current crisis, has nothing to do with the current crisis. In fact, for the purposes of this conversation, we might as well pretend we are in 1950. The idea behind it is to explain if the church can prescribe an evil discipline, that’s it. Vatican II and its ramifications are all accidents. In my understanding, you haven’t provided any positive evidence, other than simply reaffirming the premise, that the explanation of the thesis is wrong. Yes, we agree that the church cannot prescribe evil discipline, if we understand discipline as the theologians have always understood, namely, as a indirect byproduct of doctrine. But when “discipline” is a byproduct of something else, it seems to me we have theological precedence to deny its infallibility. In fact, in such cenário, it would not be discipline in the strict sense anymore. Think of it as a “disciplinevacantism” (lol). Now, I’m not claiming I hold the thesis. I still don’t know if it is theologically sound (that’s why I asked for help here), but I don’t think you have provided any reason that it is wrong. An exemple of something that would invalidate de thesis is a authority claiming that discipline holds positive and direct infallibility, or that any attempt to separate doctrine from discipline is futile, or something similar. Let me take the opportunity to ask, you said you believe the Conciliar Church has taught heresy. Do you have any examples from magisterial acts of popes, excluding the documents of Vatican II? I’m talking about teaching of doctrine here, not just discipline and law. Hello alyosha, Thank you for clarifying. I am happy you agree that the Church cannot prescribe evil in its universal disciplinary laws. I think that you are not grasping either what I am saying, so I'll try to address this a different way. The Church would not make disciplinary laws that were not part of its commission, so really your idea is positing something that cannot happen. The Church teaches, governs and sanctifies Catholics, and all of Her laws in some way would be developed for that end. What pre-conciliar universal law are you thinking about that you think would not in some way connected with the Faith or morals? I can't think of any. The Church doesn't make laws that wouldn't be connected to its teaching or for good morals. The presupposition of the binding power given to St. Peter was to this end. When the Church binds Catholics, for example, to not eat meat on Fridays, then the law would not be against the Faith or morals, and would assist us in living our Faith and our duties. It's connected to doctrine, but is not doctrine itself, as the doctrine is that the Church can compel us to perform certain duties for our good to benefit our salvation. The same can be said about the Sunday Mass obligation, or the the requirement to receive Communion and confess at least once a year, and many other laws. I would also point out that the laws Conciliar sect, like the Church, are doctrinally or morally connected, they just are not infallibly protected from spiritually harming souls or being evil. Regarding heresy of the Conciliar sect, that a big subject, so it's better we start a new thread to dive into that.
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Jan 15, 2024 7:09:26 GMT -5
Pacelli, hope you don’t mind me synthesizing your claim, but it helps to distillate the essence of the matter. Basically you are denying that it is possible for the church to make a law that is not connected to doctrine. If that is the case then yes, my thesis is wrong. But I don’t concede that it is the case. If you provide me some sources that states this claim I concede my position, until then I think we are simply denying each other’s position.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 15, 2024 16:49:56 GMT -5
Pacelli , hope you don’t mind me synthesizing your claim, but it helps to distillate the essence of the matter. Basically you are denying that it is possible for the church to make a law that is not connected to doctrine. If that is the case then yes, my thesis is wrong. But I don’t concede that it is the case. If you provide me some sources that states this claim I concede my position, until then I think we are simply denying each other’s position. It's actually not what o am saying. I am saying that the universal disciplinary laws of the Church are always connected to doctrine or morals. Can you think of any universal law of the Church that isn't connected?
|
|
alyosha
Junior Member
Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God
Posts: 60
|
Post by alyosha on Jan 15, 2024 17:05:45 GMT -5
Pacelli, if you are saying that the laws and the doctrine are always connected either you mean: A) They can never be separated B) They have always been connected. B is an empty argument, since the fact that this has always been the case doesn't mean it will continue to be. So the only meaningful point would be A, and I've addressed that. Now, you ask if I have an exemple of a universal law that is not connected to the doctrine. Pre-Vatican II? No. Post-Vatican II? The thesis will say ALL the laws made were completely disconnected from doctrine because the Church said it is. This is the crux of our disagreement if I understand it correctly. Answer this hypothetical: If the Catholic Church makes a decree that every Catholic should drink only milk on wednesdays, but she explicitly states in the decree that this law has nothing to do with the deposit of faith, and instead is being issued because the Pope read in the news that Cristiano Ronaldo does this, is this law infallible?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 16, 2024 16:21:56 GMT -5
That hypothetical is a begging the question fallacy. Are you married to this theory. Will you brook no critique of it? It sounds to me like you have internalized your own theory and no reasonable push back is accepted. My friend...your theory is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 16, 2024 16:28:47 GMT -5
Heres my hypothetical....Jesus promises that anyone who follows His Church ( enduring to the end) will not be lost....but if you follow vat2 theology especially francis...you will support idolotry..sodomy...indifferentism...and humanity is the center of all truth ( freemasonry) Did jesus Lie?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 17, 2024 7:25:14 GMT -5
Pacelli , if you are saying that the laws and the doctrine are always connected either you mean: A) They can never be separated B) They have always been connected. B is an empty argument, since the fact that this has always been the case doesn't mean it will continue to be. So the only meaningful point would be A, and I've addressed that. Now, you ask if I have an exemple of a universal law that is not connected to the doctrine. Pre-Vatican II? No. Post-Vatican II? The thesis will say ALL the laws made were completely disconnected from doctrine because the Church said it is. This is the crux of our disagreement if I understand it correctly. Answer this hypothetical: If the Catholic Church makes a decree that every Catholic should drink only milk on wednesdays, but she explicitly states in the decree that this law has nothing to do with the deposit of faith, and instead is being issued because the Pope read in the news that Cristiano Ronaldo does this, is this law infallible? Don't you think it's a presupposition that when the Church makes law that binds Catholics that these laws will all be doctrinally connected? The Church is after all a spiritual kingdom, not a government of this world. When it makes law, the understanding is that it is making such a law to govern Christian living, to support its mission, or to regulate its worship. The Church doesn't make laws saying you must keep your lawn mowed or register or inspect your car. I do not think you cannot just ignore the 2,000 year track record of this so easily and just dismiss it. Even though history is not an absolute proof, and I do concede that, it goes along perfectly with what I am saying. If this understanding is wrong it should be easy to see a law taken from any time period of Church history and say, "I found one, here is a law that has no doctrinal connection." Look through the 1917 Code or the numerous universal disciplinary laws of the Popes of the 20th century, and you will not see it either. Theology is always understood with certain presuppositions, and once those are divorced from the understanding, it makes no sense any longer. All one has to do is look at the Feeneyites to see how wrong they are due to learning their theology is such an unCatholic manner. It's worth noting that this secondary infallibility only applies to universal disciplinary laws, not local laws of a diocese, including the diocese of Rome. It only applies to the laws of the universal Church. I would contend that the laws post V2 are certainly doctrinally based, just not Catholic doctrine. If you can stomach it, read the recent instruction of the DDF. It is very clear that they connected this new blessing to doctrine, they explain that ad naseum in order to justify it, even repeatedly citing Sacred Scripture repeatedly to support the doctrinal foundation of it. The law which compels Catholic priests to administer Holy Communion to certain non-Catholics is the same, it is doctrinally connected. It's doctrinally grounded on a belief that the Church is not confined to the Catholic Church alone, and that the Church is greater than the Catholic Church and is made up of all baptized persons who are part of heretical or schismatic sects. The law reflects that doctrinal belief. These serve as proofs that there is a doctrinal rupture between this undeclared sect and the Catholic Church.
|
|
|
Post by patricius on Jan 18, 2024 16:14:32 GMT -5
The law which compels Catholic priests to administer Holy Communion to certain non-Catholics is the same, it is doctrinally connected. It's doctrinally grounded on a belief that the Church is not confined to the Catholic Church alone, and that the Church is greater than the Catholic Church and is made up of all baptized persons who are part of heretical or schismatic sects. The law reflects that doctrinal belief. You will know them by their fruit, so I agree that it cannot be the same church. As Ratzinger proved when stating the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, as if it also does in other false churches. The false teachings of the Novus Ordo are true for their non catholic church, The One World Synagogue. The purpose of their Orwellian speak / hermeneutic of continuity nonsense was only to confuse and delay Catholics from concluding that their teaching was not Catholic, and therefore they were not Catholic. Fr. Ricossa shed light on Ratzinger's conspiracy in a Sodalittium article from 1993, which is a worthwhile read. www.sodalitiumpianum.com/ratzinger-protestant-99/"Ratzinger is asking us to adhere to an unknown church of the future modeled after a falsified picture of the ancient Church, so that in actuality, we will abandon the eternal and immutable Church of Christ."
|
|