|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 4, 2018 14:39:43 GMT -5
Do you know what the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is? If so, do you understand how it applies to this line of reasoning? If you read a little bit about that fallacy, I think you might better see how it is problematic for traditionalists who argue this way. Yeah thats not my point.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 15:20:45 GMT -5
Do you know what the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is? If so, do you understand how it applies to this line of reasoning? If you read a little bit about that fallacy, I think you might better see how it is problematic for traditionalists who argue this way. Yeah thats not my point. I know, but it's the whole point of my OP. That fallacy explains why the typical way SVists approach the crisis is wrong and can lead to serious errors and even heresy if further applied down the road.
|
|
|
Post by francis on Feb 4, 2018 16:32:03 GMT -5
If the so called development contradicts previous teaching...its null. Where is it written that doctrines must continually "develop" anyway. Maybe were at that place in history where have nothing in need of development. BTW...are you asserting it is the Pope who creates doctrine. My understanding is all essential( and thats the point)Doctrines and deposit of Faith were fully supplied at Pentecost...and future Popes from them simply affirmed what was already given. But whether it does or does not contradict is simply one's lay opinion. The popes who give it to us say it doesn't. We say it does. But how do we know we haven't misunderstood the manner in which the two teachings could be reconciled? We don't know what we don't know. We are placing our own private interpretation over the very authority by which we accept all the other teachings of the Church as a basis for questioning the new ones in the first place. While I agree that we may question their papacies, I don't agree that this is the correct starting point for it. We need to start with the identity of the Church, first, rather than start with a particular teaching we disagree with to argue to it not being a true authority. Doctrine is expounded, defended, unpacked, and clarified for the extermination of heresy, the eradication of error, and the salvation of souls. In that way, no new doctrine is created; it is developed. When the question of baptism by desire became a polarizing issue, the Council of Trent needed to address it, not as though a new doctrine was being created, but to clarify the Church's doctrine for the sake of silencing false opinions with the definitive authority of Church to secure her unity of faith and government. It was a development insofar as she gave us the specific theological details by which we now knew had it could be reconciled with baptism of water (that the former was the grave of the sacrament without the sacramental sign, thereby showing that the contradiction was only apparent and not real). Whether it does or does not contradict is not simply one's lay opinion in reality. If you take Amoris Laetitia as an example (just one of many many) it is obviously in total contradiction to Catholic Teaching and cannot in any way be reconciled. Therefore to promulgate such a travesty makes it abundantly clear that this particular person teaches a different gospel than that received and handed down through the ages. This would not be a personal judgement based on one's own opinion but rather an obvious call out of suspected heresy, and therefore not Catholic Teaching. As a true pope cannot promulgate erroneous moral or doctrinal material then this man cannot be the Pope.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 10:21:25 GMT -5
But whether it does or does not contradict is simply one's lay opinion. The popes who give it to us say it doesn't. We say it does. But how do we know we haven't misunderstood the manner in which the two teachings could be reconciled? We don't know what we don't know. We are placing our own private interpretation over the very authority by which we accept all the other teachings of the Church as a basis for questioning the new ones in the first place. While I agree that we may question their papacies, I don't agree that this is the correct starting point for it. We need to start with the identity of the Church, first, rather than start with a particular teaching we disagree with to argue to it not being a true authority. Doctrine is expounded, defended, unpacked, and clarified for the extermination of heresy, the eradication of error, and the salvation of souls. In that way, no new doctrine is created; it is developed. When the question of baptism by desire became a polarizing issue, the Council of Trent needed to address it, not as though a new doctrine was being created, but to clarify the Church's doctrine for the sake of silencing false opinions with the definitive authority of Church to secure her unity of faith and government. It was a development insofar as she gave us the specific theological details by which we now knew had it could be reconciled with baptism of water (that the former was the grave of the sacrament without the sacramental sign, thereby showing that the contradiction was only apparent and not real). Whether it does or does not contradict is not simply one's lay opinion in reality. Ontologically, yes; epistemologically, no. Whether something is true objectively is one question; how we know what is objectively true is another matter. When it concerns natural truths known by the light of natural reason, like the existence of God and the natural law, it can be known without the authority of the Church; when it concerns the extrapolation of divine revelation, only the authority of the Church can give us absolute certitude, since these truths are beyond human reason to know without divine assistance. Were this not the case, then Christ wouldn't have given us the Holy Ghost to guarantee the security of the magisterium. He would have simply let our own knowledge of it fight it out based upon our own personal understanding of how all these different supernatural truths are best reconciled, considering it is so obvious. There would be no authority to settle the disputes between any divergent theological parties, and the Church would be forever divided into as many beliefs as there are members. If it is only obvious because the authority of a pope told you it was wrong, then your rejection of the teaching of another pope violates the rule by which you have a standard of contrast to begin with. If, however, you known it to be wrong by virtue of the natural law, then I agree. Yes, provided we don't set the magisterium against itself in so doing. This argument only works if we first see that this teaching is not holy (it doesn't uphold the natural law), in which case the institution giving it to us does not possess the divine marks of the true Church, in which case it can't be the true Church, in which case it's authority and magisterium aren't guaranteed to be infallibly safe, in which case NOW we have permission to look at this doctrinal content not under the lens of the Catholic magistrium but under the lens of the teaching authority of a false church religion. There is a big epistemological difference. We can't start with the magisterium of what we believe to be the true Church and, upon finding perceived errors in it, say it's not the magisterium, without defeating the whole point of having the magisterium to begin with: an authority that guarantees it's doctrinal security so that we don't have to. That is to place our own intellects over the promises of Christ not to allow evils into the magisterium. Any perceived evil must simply be a misunderstanding, like how the Feenyites perceive error in the magisterium and then reject parts of it to suit their agenda. We can't be like them. We need to listen to how the theologians will later reconcile contemporary content with previous content and trust that God will keep His promises. However, if the teaching fails to uphold a principle of natural law, then before we view it under a magisterial lens, we view it under the lens of the marks of the Church, which must be able to be perceived and identified a priori to being Catholic, or we would never be able to identify which church is the true Church amidst all the claimants. Using natural reason to see the absence of these marks in this contemporary magisterium that emanates from a contemporary authority, we can identify the presence of a non-Catholic institution headed by that contemporary authority. From here, everything else falls into place without setting two Catholic magisteriums against each other, assuming from the outset that one of them CAN be wrong. After all, this is impossible if we believe Christ will keep His promises. In a word, reading a magisterial document with a mindset of even the possibility of finding errors assumes the possibility that the magisterial document we are reading at the moment isn't really secure. But if the authority of that magisterium is certain, then it is impossible to find contradictions in it, unless Christ's promises aren't really true.
|
|
|
Post by francis on Feb 8, 2018 9:59:52 GMT -5
There is a big epistemological difference. We can't start with the magisterium of what we believe to be the true Church and, upon finding perceived errors in it, say it's not the magisterium, without defeating the whole point of having the magisterium to begin with: an authority that guarantees it's doctrinal security so that we don't have to. That is to place our own intellects over the promises of Christ not to allow evils into the magisterium. Any perceived evil must simply be a misunderstanding, like how the Feenyites perceive error in the magisterium and then reject parts of it to suit their agenda. We can't be like them. We need to listen to how the theologians will later reconcile contemporary content with previous content and trust that God will keep His promises.
INPEFESS. My initial introduction to this topic came about whilst on another forum and concerned JP11 and his assertion that Muslims worship the same God as we. This caused me no end of confusion as it was something I could not reconcile with and at the same time caused me to worry that I was denying the Pope, therefore compromising my Catholicity. But I knew that what appeared to be stated was untrue and hoped that JP11 had meant something else. Investigation led to the reality that he did indeed mean this. Set this against a background where Islam had been condemned repeatedly by the Catholic Church and we now have an opposite declaration. The Pope cannot err in such regard. Where am I to go? Stick with him and his successors or look to see what has happened? So I had what appeared to be the magisterium. But as more contradictions to known doctrine became evident it became obvious that what appeared to be the magisterium was in fact not that of the Catholic Church. So I investigated and the rest is history. The Catholic Church remains, and a new protestant sect has been formed by those who claimed to be Catholic but were not and have since occupied the Vatican.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 10:22:27 GMT -5
There is a big epistemological difference. We can't start with the magisterium of what we believe to be the true Church and, upon finding perceived errors in it, say it's not the magisterium, without defeating the whole point of having the magisterium to begin with: an authority that guarantees it's doctrinal security so that we don't have to. That is to place our own intellects over the promises of Christ not to allow evils into the magisterium. Any perceived evil must simply be a misunderstanding, like how the Feenyites perceive error in the magisterium and then reject parts of it to suit their agenda. We can't be like them. We need to listen to how the theologians will later reconcile contemporary content with previous content and trust that God will keep His promises. INPEFESS. My initial introduction to this topic came about whilst on another forum and concerned JP11 and his assertion that Muslims worship the same God as we. This caused me no end of confusion as it was something I could not reconcile with and at the same time caused me to worry that I was denying the Pope, therefore compromising my Catholicity. But I knew that what appeared to be stated was untrue and hoped that JP11 had meant something else. Investigation led to the reality that he did indeed mean this. Set this against a background where Islam had been condemned repeatedly by the Catholic Church and we now have an opposite declaration. The Pope cannot err in such regard. Where am I to go? Stick with him and his successors or look to see what has happened? So I had what appeared to be the magisterium. But as more contradictions to known doctrine became evident it became obvious that what appeared to be the magisterium was in fact not that of the Catholic Church. So I investigated and the rest is history. The Catholic Church remains, and a new protestant sect has been formed by those who claimed to be Catholic but were not and have since occupied the Vatican. Francis, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I understand your concern with that teaching, and I agree with it, but allow me to play devil's advocate in favor of this being reconcilable with true Catholic teaching. While the Church has repeatedly condemned Islam, that doesn't mean Muslims can't intend to worship God. Gaudium et Spes says that they worship the same God, but there are two parts to worship: the sending of the worship and the acceptation of the worship. In order for God to be pleased with the worship, He accepts only that worship which He wills, which is found only in the Catholic Church. All other acts of worship He rejects. But the document never says He accepts their worship (though it could be said to imply it). The real question is what the document means. Does it mean to say that Muslims intend to worship the same God or does it mean to go further in saying it is actually accepted by Him. We don't know for sure, but if it from the true magisterium, we are bound by faith and our trust in God that it must be referring to the former, and we are bound to wait for the theologians to do their jobs in parsing out the true meaning of the text. To interpret it in the negative sense from the outset is to reject tbe magisterium based upon our own private interpretation of it, which is to disbelieve the promises of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 8, 2018 12:32:18 GMT -5
But it is certain in fact they do not worship the true God...where is the Trinity...where is the incarnation. So their intention is to worship "their version" of god...they have zero intention to worship the Father Son And Holy Ghost. Lutherans are closer.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 8, 2018 12:33:53 GMT -5
The Indians have no doubt the imtention to worship their demon gods...alistair crowely intends to worship his god Satan. Intentions hold no standard in this case.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 23:07:21 GMT -5
But they intend to worship the God of Abraham, the same God the Jews intended to worship for millennia. They reject Christ as God, yes, because they don't believe He was that God in the Flesh, though they believe He was sent by that Abrahamic God as a prophet; but their intention is still to worship the same Abrahamic God the Jews were worshipping before Christ, even though He doesn't accept their worship. They are better than the Jews in this way: while they both reject His divinity, the Jews reject Christ as coming from the Abrahamic God at all; the Mulsims don't.
We can argue about the nuances of this for centuries. But that's the point. It's much more complicated than a sweeping conclusion that God accepts Muslim worship as pleasing to Him. If it is from a true authority, though, our faith in that authority requires we place the promises of Christ over our own jump to conclusions. There have been a plethora of apparent contradictions before, but because Catholics patiently submitted to the magisterium they received answers in due time. This magisterium sifting approach toward Vatican II is a completely novel attitude for Catholics. In the past, they were called schismatics, and we all know what Pope Eugene had to say about them...
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 9, 2018 8:14:59 GMT -5
Nothing nuanced about it. Its not, as far as I can tell, sifting the magesterium. Its just basic common sense. Mohatmet never met god...he wrote a book and started a heretical movement. Should we embrace mormonism or Jehovahs witnesses because they SAY they intend to worship Christ. And further if I see brown water coming out of my faucet...should I continue to drink because I trusted the faucet before? I dont start taking water samples in my kitchen..break out a chemistry set...and (sift)analyze it. I simply refuse to drink it and shut off the tap. Its a simple function of God given reason. Something Jesus reffered to when He pointed out that people can tell when a rainstorm is coming but they are missing the coming of Christ. Calling the muslim god the same God as Catholics is just a prima facia error. Not a nuance.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 9, 2018 13:56:46 GMT -5
"What then shall a Catholic christian do... if some novel contagion attempt to infect no longer a small part of the church alone but the whole church alike? He shall then see to it that he cleave unto antiquity, which is now utterly incapable of being seduced by any craft or novelty" ~St. Vincent of Lerins~
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 15:12:39 GMT -5
Nothing nuanced about it. Its not, as far as I can tell, sifting the magesterium. Its just basic common sense. That's the same reason given by every group that claims to find error in the Church's magisterium and then impugns its authority. If they were wrong in principle for disbelieving the authority of the Church, then so are we for following the exact same method. If their method was wrong, then so is ours, lest we be guilty of special pleading. Embrace them, no, but Guadiem et Spes doesnt say that. It says they worship God, which could mean that they intend to worship Him only, which is reconcilable with Catholic teaching that they fail miserably. But if Christ promised you brown water would never come out of your faucet, your first reaction wouldn't be to say "it's not my faucet"; the moment before the water came out you were absolutely sure it was your faucet, and He guaranteed that would never happen. My first reaction would be to question my own eyesight. No one's perception is so infallible that it trumps God's promises. Sure, I get it. But its not the conclusion I disagree with; it's the premise. It's not our job to sift the magisterium for any errors we can gleen so as to impugn the validity of the authority. Our job is to take it on faith that the Church won't give us stones when we ask for bread. Instead of testing each loaf of bread to see if it really is bread, then, our first course of action should be to ensure that what gave it to us in the first place is really the Church. If and only if it is certainly from the Church can we accept it as bread, unconditionally. If we determine it is not from the Church, then we have the right to dispute what it is really made of.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 15:20:03 GMT -5
"What then shall a Catholic christian do... if some novel contagion attempt to infect no longer a small part of the church alone but the whole church alike? He shall then see to it that he cleave unto antiquity, which is now utterly incapable of being seduced by any craft or novelty" ~St. Vincent of Lerins~ Of course, but he's not talking a teaching of the Church that the authority of private judgment says is novel. He's talking about a practice or belief that develops outside the authority of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 10, 2018 8:28:50 GMT -5
WHEN THE SHEPHERD BECOMES A WOLF by Dom Prosper Guéranger (On St. Cyril’s Condemnation of Nestorius) “When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. Normally, without doubt, doctrine descends from the bishops to the faithful, and those who are subjects, in the order of the faith, are not to judge their superiors. But in the treasure of revelation there are some essential points which every Christian, by at the very fact of his title as Christian, is bound to know and defend.”
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 9:38:34 GMT -5
WHEN THE SHEPHERD BECOMES A WOLF by Dom Prosper Guéranger (On St. Cyril’s Condemnation of Nestorius) “When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. Normally, without doubt, doctrine descends from the bishops to the faithful, and those who are subjects, in the order of the faith, are not to judge their superiors. But in the treasure of revelation there are some essential points which every Christian, by at the very fact of his title as Christian, is bound to know and defend.” Yes, that's very true, but if the shepherd is speaking with the magosterial force of the Church, it is impossible that he even could be erring, in which case we must believe it is us who err. If you were living at the time of St. Pius X, not knowing he would one day be declared a saint, and if, while you recognized his true authority, he authoritatively promulgated the doctrine that Christ never laughed during His time on earth, would you say your common sense proves that untrue, or would you submit your intellect to the authority and promises of Christ and believe it to be true because Peter's magisterium has spoken, and who are you to say there can be errors in it?
|
|