Caillin
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 136
|
Post by Caillin on Mar 22, 2018 21:56:14 GMT -5
I know some people who won't trust any Catholic sources after Vatican I, other than when it's a teaching of the pope to the universal Church. They think the idea of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium as elucidated by Fenton is a complete post-Vatican I novelty. There's much more to this issue of theirs, but I'll leave it at that.
Can anyone please provide links or information on pre-Vatican I sources regarding the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 23, 2018 4:08:48 GMT -5
Can anyone please provide links or information on pre-Vatican I sources regarding the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium?
John 14:16
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 23, 2018 8:03:57 GMT -5
I know some people who won't trust any Catholic sources after Vatican I, other than when it's a teaching of the pope to the universal Church. They think the idea of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium as elucidated by Fenton is a complete post-Vatican I novelty. There's much more to this issue of theirs, but I'll leave it at that.
Can anyone please provide links or information on pre-Vatican I sources regarding the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium?
The people who deny this teaching of the Church simply don’t think like Catholics. The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium has been the ordinary method of teaching from the beginning. There were no definitions at the beginning of the Church. The Pope could not easily communicate with the Church. The bishops taught their flocks, and as the entire Church could not err, when the bishops all taught the same doctrine and this doctrine was confirmed even just tacitly by the Pope, then it was infallible. To argue otherwise is to argue for a defectible Church, a Church that could not be trusted until a definition is made by the Pope. Why should Catholics have bothered resisting Arius? They could have said, “well there’s no definition yet, so he’s free to teach his ideas.” I will post some sources later.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 24, 2018 22:46:58 GMT -5
Caillin wrote:
I have been busy, but I have been thinking about this. A question that I have is: what writing of Fenton are these people referring to? I have read most of Fr. Fenton’s writings, and I can’t recall where he gets into the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. Are they meaning to challenge the ordinary magisterium of the Pope and are using the wrong term? Fenton certainly wrote a lot about that.
Another thing I find strange is that if they accept the Vatican Council, as opposed to the Old Catholics, then they should realize that this teaching was part of the Council’s teaching. I can look it up if you want. Are they Old Catholics?
|
|
Caillin
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 136
|
Post by Caillin on Mar 25, 2018 16:08:58 GMT -5
Caillin wrote: I have been busy, but I have been thinking about this. A question that I have is: what writing of Fenton are these people referring to? I have read most of Fr. Fenton’s writings, and I can’t recall where he gets into the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. Are they meaning to challenge the ordinary magisterium of the Pope and are using the wrong term? Fenton certainly wrote a lot about that. Another thing I find strange is that if they accept the Vatican Council, as opposed to the Old Catholics, then they should realize that this teaching was part of the Council’s teaching. I can look it up if you want. Are they Old Catholics? The people in question didn't actually refer to a writing of Fenton, or Fenton himself in their rejection of the Church's teaching on the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. I just used that here to sum up what they were rejecting. I was thinking of Fenton's work in, "Concepts in Sacred Theology", which I had previously posted here tradcath.proboards.com/post/10857/thread . I think I was also thinking of Canon George Smith's, "Must I Believe It" (I occasionally confuse this as being written by Fenton).
Here is their criteria for infallibility. They claim nothing is infallible if one of these five things is missing.
1. Defined to the universal Church 2. On a matter of Faith or Morals 3. Defined by a Pope using his highest authority 4. Binding all Catholics 5. Irrevocable and unchangeable
They then say these are the only channels/sources of infallible doctrine: 1. The three Creeds of the Catholic Church 2. The Ecumenical Councils 3. Ex Cathedra Statements
They say they believe, as Vatican I teaches, that teachings on faith and morals that are taught by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium as divinely revealed must be believed with divine and catholic faith. But they'll say that that's only the case when they don't contradict solemn judgments of the pope, since Vatican I only defines papal infallibility, and not infallibility of any other bishops. They do this by pointing out that those statements about the infallibility of a universal teaching of bishops always includes the words, "in union with the pope." They say that means the teaching is only infallible when it's a "teaching that is in union with the pope", or, in other words, that it's only infallible when it doesn't contradict a pope's teaching. They reject the idea of "tacit approval of the pope". So, they believe it doesn't matter how many bishops, theologians, catechisms, and other Catholic sources teach something, unanimously or not, if it contradicts what has been defined by a pope [obviously there's the whole question of interpretation]. I call it "Sola Solemnii", for "the Solemn Magisterium alone". They believe the Franco-Prussian War was an act of Divine Providence to stop the council from defining any other infallibility other than papal infallibility.
They go further to say that Vatican I was a time in history when the Jews really made great progress in infiltrating the Church and inculcating false liberal teachings amongst most of the bishops and theologians. They accept the decrees of Vatican I (as they interpret them), but distrust almost everything after that which wasn't universally taught or promulgated by a pope (they do also reject infallibility of canon law, Holy Office statements, etc.). For this reason, they say they won't trust any book written after that time, and believe all those writings that teach about the infallibility of universal teachings of bishops, catechisms, etc., are part of the Jewish modernist, liberal agenda.
There may be more I could add, but hopefully that helps give a better idea of their position.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 25, 2018 17:29:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 25, 2018 17:42:05 GMT -5
Thanks Caillin,
I had forgotten about “Concepts in Sacred Theology.” Thanks for reminding me, I should have remembered since I reread it recently when you posted it.
It seems to me that you are dealing with people with advanced Feeneyite infection. They make up their own rules of learning theology, and their own version of Church history to support their views, rely on private interpretation of Scripture, the Councils and Papal teaching. They pretend that their private understandings are binding on others.
We have had some such as this on this forum, they are very much like Protestants, they rely on private judgment. From my experience with these folks, no reasoning and argumentation will get through their proud reliance on their own judgement. They like to pretend that they are the faithful the only faithful Catholics and the rest of us are liberal and modernist at best, heretics at worst.
The criterion you mention that they hold for the transmission of revelation, leaves serious holes. What happened before the ecumenical councils, creeds, and definitions of Popes? What happened when teachings were not explicitly taught in the Creeds or Councils, or if Popes have not yet defined teachings as ex cathedra?
How could a Catholic recognize a new heresy not dealt with by the Church, such as that of Arius? Should Catholics have said, “the Councils, ex cathedra statements and Creeds, have not specifically taught against Arius, so we need to let him and his followers preach his new doctrines and not condemn it?”
If the three sources of knowing revelation are the only sources, then Catholics are easy prey to the wolf. They cannot trust their bishops and priests, they only rely on their own learning and understanding of the three sources you mentioned. If they believe it’s not there, based on their own judgment, they believe they are free to reject or accept any teaching whatsoever.
In the end analysis, this idea is a heresy, it’s a direct attack on the Divine Constitution of the Church, and the role of the hierarchy is transmitting revelation. It makes a mockery of Our Lord’s teaching, “he who hears you, hear me.” This is why Feeneyism is a direct attack against the Faith, it’s not just about the denial of Baptism of Desire and Blood, it’s about an entire belief system that makes private judgment the standard of knowing ones Faith. In essence, it’s an attack against the Papacy and the role of the hierarchy.
I wish you well in dealing with these people.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 25, 2018 17:49:28 GMT -5
I have to ask why caillin is dealing with these folks?
|
|
Caillin
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 136
|
Post by Caillin on Mar 25, 2018 21:24:22 GMT -5
I have to ask why caillin is dealing with these folks? There are many reasons. One is that 6 of their children are my and my wife's godchildren.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 26, 2018 3:39:52 GMT -5
I have to ask why caillin is dealing with these folks? There are many reasons. One is that 6 of their children are my and my wife's godchildren. It wasnt meant as a criticism. Sorry. I had a hunch it was family related
|
|