OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 06:57:47 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Authority and Dissent in the Catholic Church  (Read 3010 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« on: September 01, 2011, 08:55:07 PM »

Authority and Dissent in the Catholic Church | Dr. William E. May |
IgnatiusInsight.com

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/wmay_authority_nov06.asp

What is the role of the Church as moral teacher, and what is the
obligation on the part of the faithful (including the pope, bishops,
theologians, and ordinary laypeople) to choose in accordance with the
moral norms proposed by the Church's teaching authority? Can dissent
from such teaching be legitimate? To answer these questions it will be
useful to consider

  1. teaching authority in the Church;
  2. the ways in which this authority is exercised;
  3. whether specific moral norms have been taught infallibly by the
Church's teaching authority;
  4. the kind of response due to moral teachings that have not been
proposed infallibly;
  5. the question of dissent.



The rest of the article can be read by following the link provided above. Posting of article pared down to introductory abstract to make post compliant with forum policy on how to post articles from other sites.

- PtA
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 06:51:03 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2011, 02:16:53 PM »

Authority and Dissent in the Catholic Church | Dr. William E. May |
IgnatiusInsight.com

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/wmay_authority_nov06.asp

What is the role of the Church as moral teacher, and what is the
obligation on the part of the faithful (including the pope, bishops,
theologians, and ordinary laypeople) to choose in accordance with the
moral norms proposed by the Church's teaching authority? Can dissent
from such teaching be legitimate? To answer these questions it will be
useful to consider

  1. teaching authority in the Church;
  2. the ways in which this authority is exercised;
  3. whether specific moral norms have been taught infallibly by the
Church's teaching authority;
  4. the kind of response due to moral teachings that have not been
proposed infallibly;
  5. the question of dissent.
6. how this authority specifies what is infallible, and what specifically are those norms.


1. Teaching authority (magisterium) within the Church

As scholars such as the late great Dominican theologian, Yves Cardinal
Congar, have noted, the term magisterium has such a long history and
during the Middle Ages it referred to the teaching authority proper to
theologians, i.e., those who by study and diligence have achieved some
understanding of the truths of the faith and their relationship to
truths that can be known without the light of faith. [1]
this is a problem, as there is the assertion of a "magisterium of theologians," against which those who deny it hold that in the hierarchy of theological certitude that they are not even ordinary magisterium, the degree of certitude is fallible, and they have no assent required.  It that is true, then that applies to the long history refered to here when "magisterium" meant the theologians' teaching authority, and not, as now, the theologians are defined as opposed (meaning not part of) the "magisterium.
"Donum Veritatis" Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologian
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

But today this term has a very precise meaning,

development of doctrine strikes again, ever redefining the Faith once for all delivered unto the saints
one given it by the
Church herself in her understanding of herself as the pillar and
ground of truth (see Tim 3:15) against which the gates of hell cannot
prevail (Mt 16:18; Gal 1:Cool, and as the community to which Christ
himself has entrusted his saving word and work. According to her own
understanding of the term, the Church teaches that the magisterium is
the authority to teach, in the name of Christ, the truths of Christian
faith and life (morals) and all that is necessary and/or useful for
the proclamation and defense of these truths (see Dei verbum, Cool. This
teaching authority is vested in the college of bishops under the
headship of the chief bishop, the Roman Pontiff, the "concrete center
of unity and head of the whole episcopate," [2] the successor of the
Apostle Peter (see Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, 22; Vatican
Council I, DS 3065-3074).
ah, but then that college of bishops includes a number of "dissidents."  It doesn't seem that your article recognizes that.  And then, "the Roman Pontiff" can overrule any and all of the "college of bishops," which vests that magisterium in him, which raises the question of how the College of Cardinals vest in the chief bishop a "munus" they don't have.

This magisterium, moreover, demands assent to its teachings by the
faithful in virtue of the divine authority vested in it and not simply
in virtue of the contents of the message it teaches (Vatican Council
I, DS 3020). It has authority in teaching all the faithful in keeping
with the inner constitution of the Church itself (Lumen gentium,
23-24). Its teaching, moreover, is an exercise of its pastoral office,
its munus (a term much richer in connotation than our English
"office," connoting a privileged honor and mission [3]), to care for
the "souls" of all the faithful, i.e., to safeguard the divine life
within them.
I cannot reply better than the Eastern Patriarchs did:
Quote
For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
The reverse what you get when you vest the Church in one part as opposed to other parts, rather than a seamless whole.

2. The different ways in which the magisterium is exercised

At times the magisterium proposes matters of faith and morals
infallibly, i.e., with the assurance that what is proposed is
absolutely irreformable and a matter to be held definitively by the
faithful. At other times the magisterium proposes matters of faith and
morals authoritatively and as true, but not in such wise that the
matter proposed is to be held definitively and absolutely. But still
the matter proposed is to be held by the faithful and to be held as
true. Note that the proper way to speak of teachings proposed in this
way is to say that they are authoritatively taught; it is not proper
to say that they are fallibly taught.
distinction without a difference as long as you can't/won't tell what is "infallibly" taught.

A. Infallibly proposed teachings

The magisterium can propose matters infallibly in two different ways.
First, a matter of faith or morals can be solemnly defined by an
ecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff when, "as the supreme
shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, he . . . proclaims by a
definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals" (Vatican I, DS 3074).
a useless term of art as long as "definitive act" is left indefinitely defined.

Secondly, and this is most important to recognize, the magisterium can
propose matters of faith or morals infallibly in the ordinary,
day-to-day exercise of its authority when specific

unspecified
conditions are
fulfilled. These conditions are clearly stated in the Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church of Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium).
no, they are not.
In a
centrally important passage of that document the Council Fathers
declared:

  Although the bishops individually do not enjoy the prerogative of
infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim the teaching of Christ
infallibly, even when they are dispersed throughout the world,
provided that they remain in communion with each other and with the
successor of Peter and that in authoritatively teaching on a matter of
faith and morals they agree in one judgment as that to be held
definitively (25).
again, ingoring those "dissident" bishops.  The majority report on Humanae Vitae being a good example, followed up by the Winnipeg Statement.  And the Vatican's bishops do not remain in communion with each other: the Vatican places value only on their communion with it.

This teaching of Vatican II on the infallible character of
authoritative magisterial teaching in the day-to-day or ordinary
exercise of its authority was by no means a novel teaching of Vatican
II. It had been set forth in the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici (c. 1323,
#2), a canon repeated as canon 74, #2 in the new Codex Iuris Canonici
promulgated in 1983, and drawn almost word for word from Vatican I's
solemn teaching on the same matter (cf. DS 3011). Canon 749, #2 in the
new Codex reads as follows: "The College of Bishops also possesses
infallibility in its teaching . . . when the Bishops, dispersed
throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among
themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same
Roman Pontiff authentically (or authoritatively) teach matters of
faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is
definitively to be held."
so many words used to say nothing.
This key teaching of Lumen gentium makes it quite clear that the
magisterium can (and does) propose teachings on moral matters when the
conditions so clearly described are met.
clearly it does not describe the conditions.  Old legal trick of precision in language carefully evading meaning by cloaking it in detailed vagueries.

If it were so clearly described, their identity would not be so widely disputed.

B. Teachings authoritatively but not infallibly proposed

The magisterium, moreover, is an authoritative teacher of Catholic
faith and morals

but not Catholic theology.  +Sic Maria dixit.  July 27, 2011
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38266.msg608565.html#msg608565

when it exercises its teaching authority in a manner
that is not clearly intended to be infallible.

and how do they make that clear, when they don't clarify when they are "exercising their teaching authority in a manner that is intended to be infallible."

When the bishops teach
on matters of faith and morals in their capacity as bishops, they
"speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their
teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (obsequium
religiosum) of soul.
like those bishops of the Winnipeg Statement, and the HV Majority Report?

This religious submission of will and mind must
be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the
Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it
must be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority is
acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely
adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will" (Lumen gentium,
25). The meaning of this obsequium religiosum will be examined in more
detail below, under #4.
how about according to his unmanifest mind and will, i.e. his usual modus operandi?

3. Are some specific moral norms infallibly proposed by the magisterium?

Every Catholic theologian acknowledges that certain very general moral
norms are infallibly proposed (e.g., one ought to love God and one's
neighbor). But today a key claim made by a good number of Catholic
theologians is that no specific moral norms have been infallibly
taught; indeed, they claim that such specific moral norms (e.g., one
ought never to commit adultery; one ought never intentionally to kill
an innocent human being) cannot be taught infallibly.

Some theologians, for example, Charles E. Curran, appeal to the Code
of Canon Law to support their claim. Thus Curran and several of his
associates appealed in 1969 to paragraph 3 of canon 1323 of the old
1917 Code (in fact, they erroneously cited canon 1223, or perhaps this
was a typographical error), which corresponds to paragraph 3 of canon
749 in the new 1983 Code. [4] This paragraph says that "No doctrine is
to be understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly
demonstrated" (emphasis added). But appeal to this paragraph does not
settle the matter. The paragraph to which Curran (and others) appeal
is explicitly concerned with teachings infallibly defined; it is not
concerned with teachings infallibly proposed by the ordinary,
day-to-day exercise of the magisterium.
a moot question, as the canons don't explicitely delineate between the two.  And since all the disclaimers about the Pope being infallible in anything and everything he says, unless a teaching falls in that "narrow definition" of infallible that is claimed for Pastor Aeternus, one should assUme that, since to not "manifestly demonstrate" is the modus operandi of the ordinary, day-to-day exercise of the magisterium, that such teaching are not infallible.  (note: I didn't say "teach fallibly").

Curran and others who deny
that specific moral norms can be infallibly proposed never consider
whether the conditions for teachings infallibly proposed in this way
have been met.
yes, they do: they just aren't impressed by showing off a halo of infallibility that sheds no light.

As we shall see, evidence supports the position that
the core of Catholic moral teaching has been proposed in this way.

These theologians likewise contend that we come to know all specific
moral norms inductively, by reflecting on shared human experiences in
company with others. They then argue that, since "we can never exclude
the possibility that future experience, hitherto unimagined, might put
a moral problem into a new frame of reference which would call for a
revision of a norm that, when formulated, could not have taken such
experience into account," [5] norms of this kind cannot be universally
true and hence cannot be fit subject matter of infallible teaching.
Here I simply wish to point out that these theologians have not
properly identified the way we come to know specific moral norms. As
St. Thomas and the Catholic tradition hold, the truth of many specific
moral norms, e.g., the precepts of the Decalogue, can be shown in the
light of the primary principles of natural law. [6]
yes, one of the primary sources of error in the Vatican's thinking. And even here, natural law won't save you, e.g. over usury in agrarian society and interest in capitalist ones.

A final reason advanced by these theologians to support their claim
that specific moral norms are rooted in the "concrete" nature of human
beings, not in their "transcendental" or "metaphysical" nature, and
that man's "concrete" nature is subject to radical change. This
position, rooted in Rahnerian thought, ignores the fact that human
nature cannot substantively change if men are to remain men and if
Christ shared Adam's and our human nature. It also ignores the truth
that the goods perfective of human persons, the goods to which we are
ordered by our natural inclinations, the goods at stake in moral
choices, are the same for us as they were for Adam, goods such as life
itself, living in harmony and fellowship with others, knowledge of the
truth, etc. [7]
correctly stated, but with no followup.

On the other hand, many theologians today (and the whole body of
theologians prior to Vatican Council II)
gee, what happened at Vatican Council II?

recognize that the core of
Catholic moral teaching, as set forth in the precepts of the Decalogue
as these precepts have been and are understood within the Church
itself, has been infallibly proposed by the ordinary, day-to-day
exercise of the magisterium by bishops dispersed throughout the world
yet in union with one another and with the Holy Father. For this
magisterium has proposed, as a matter definitively to be held, that it
is always gravely immoral intentionally to kill the innocent,

yes, I'm sure the victims of the Inquisition and the children of the Albigensians ("Kill them all, let God sort them out"), not to mention the youngin's that the Crusaders came across were aware of that.

to
commit adultery (or fornication or sodomy), etc.
dispensations could be and have been and are to be had.

This was the
understanding of the Church Fathers, of medieval theologians such as
Thomas Aquinas, etc. It was the firm teaching of the Catechism of the
Council of Trent, and it was commonly taught by all theologians prior
to Vatican II, as attested to in a remarkable text of Karl Rahner in
his book Nature and Grace, published in English in 1963. Although he
never formally repudiated what he had said in that book, Rahner
subsequently claimed that the magisterium cannot infallibly teach
specific moral norms insofar as they are concerned with man's concrete
human nature. But, as we have seen, this view cannot be sustained.
not here, we haven't.
What caused Rahner to change his mind, apparently, was Humanae Vitae;
for nothing in the text of the documents of Vatican II can be used to
support this view.

Moreover, and this is very important, Pope John Paul II in Evangelium
Vitae explicitly referred to the key passage in Lumen Gentium, 25,
identifying the conditions under which the ordinary, day-to-day
exercise of the magisterium can propose truths infallibly. He did so
in affirming as solemnly as he could without making an ex cathedra
pronouncement the truth of the Church's teaching on
a the absolute inviolability of innocent human life from intentional
attack (Evangelium Vitae, 57),
b the intrinsically evil character of intentional abortion (Ibid., 62) and
c the intrinsically evil character of all forms of euthanasia or mercy
killing (Ibid., 65).
if he could (and should) have made an infallible statement ex cathedra, the fact that he avoided it strengthens the argument that it is not infallible: if it were infallible, why avoid treating it as such.

4. The response due moral teachings authoritatively but not infallibly proposed

I have argued that the central core of Catholic moral teaching has
been infallibly proposed by the ordinary magisterium. Even if one were
to disagree with this argument (which I believe is sound), one must
acknowledge that the magisterium does teach with a more than merely
human authority on moral questions. Moreover, it proposes moral norms
not as legalistic rules but as truths of Christian life. Moral
teachings authoritatively but not infallibly proposed as true are
binding upon the consciences of the faithful, including pope, bishops,
theologians, and ordinary laypeople.
IOW the infallible/fallible distinction is without a difference.

All the faithful are to give
these teachings a religious submission (obsequium religiosum) of will
and mind. Teachings authoritatively proposed are proposed as true, not
as opinions or "prudential guidelines."

Still, such teachings are not infallibly proposed; they are not
proposed as "definitively to be held." This raises the question of the
nature of the "religious submission" of will and mind and the question
of dissent. Precisely what does this entail?
that they indefintively hold them.

5. The nature of the "obsequium religiosum" and the question of dissent

It is interesting to note that the term "dissent" did not appear in
theological literature prior to the end of Vatican Council II. The
"approved" manuals to which the three bishops, who wanted Lumen
gentium 25 to say something about the nature of the obsequium
religiosum required for teaching authoritatively but not infallibly
proposed, were referred did not speak of legitimate theological
dissent from such teaching. [8] Rather, they recognized that a
theologian (or other well-informed Catholic) might not in conscience
be able to give internal assent to some teachings. They thus spoke of
"withholding assent" and raising questions, but this is a far cry from
"dissent."
except if the withholder of assent wears a mitre.

The Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian issued by
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has addressed this
matter. It recognized that theologians (and others) might question not
only the form but even the substantive content of some authoritatively
proposed magisterial teachings. It held that it is permissible in such
instances to withhold assent, to raise questions (and present them to
the magisterium), to discuss the issues with other theologians (and be
humble enough to accept criticism of one's own views by them).
Theologians (and others) can propose their views as hypotheses to be
considered and tested by other theologians and ultimately to be judged
by those who have, within the Church, the solemn obligation of
settling disputes and speaking the mind of Christ.

But it taught one is not giving a true obsequium religiosum if one
dissents from magisterial teaching and proposes one's own position as
a position that the faithful are at liberty to follow, substituting it
for the teaching of the magisterium.
then the magisterium shold be clear, backing up its claims of clarity.

But this is precisely what has
been occurring. Dissent of this kind is not compatible with the
obsequium religiosum. In fact, those who dissent in this way really
usurp the teaching office of bishops and popes. Theologians, insofar
as they are theologians, are not pastors in the Church. When they
instruct the faithful that the teachings of those who are pastors in
the Church (the pope and bishops) are false and that the faithful can
put those teachings aside and put in their place their own theological
opinions, they are harming the Church and arrogantly assuming for
themselves the pastoral role of pope and bishops.
Actually, it seems the Vatican's bishops and popes have appropriated the magisterium which had formed amidst its theologicans.

Dissent, understood in this sense, is thus completely incompatible
with the obsequium religiosum required for teachings authoritatively
but not infallibly proposed.

This article originally appeared in the May/June 2000 issue of Catholic Dossier.
is that like the Preachers Hymnal for the Choir?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2011, 10:08:55 PM »

You have not idea really what you are talking about here.  Not a clue.


Authority and Dissent in the Catholic Church | Dr. William E. May |
IgnatiusInsight.com

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/wmay_authority_nov06.asp

What is the role of the Church as moral teacher, and what is the
obligation on the part of the faithful (including the pope, bishops,
theologians, and ordinary laypeople) to choose in accordance with the
moral norms proposed by the Church's teaching authority? Can dissent
from such teaching be legitimate? To answer these questions it will be
useful to consider

  1. teaching authority in the Church;
  2. the ways in which this authority is exercised;
  3. whether specific moral norms have been taught infallibly by the
Church's teaching authority;
  4. the kind of response due to moral teachings that have not been
proposed infallibly;
  5. the question of dissent.
6. how this authority specifies what is infallible, and what specifically are those norms.


1. Teaching authority (magisterium) within the Church

As scholars such as the late great Dominican theologian, Yves Cardinal
Congar, have noted, the term magisterium has such a long history and
during the Middle Ages it referred to the teaching authority proper to
theologians, i.e., those who by study and diligence have achieved some
understanding of the truths of the faith and their relationship to
truths that can be known without the light of faith. [1]
this is a problem, as there is the assertion of a "magisterium of theologians," against which those who deny it hold that in the hierarchy of theological certitude that they are not even ordinary magisterium, the degree of certitude is fallible, and they have no assent required.  It that is true, then that applies to the long history refered to here when "magisterium" meant the theologians' teaching authority, and not, as now, the theologians are defined as opposed (meaning not part of) the "magisterium.
"Donum Veritatis" Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologian
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

But today this term has a very precise meaning,

development of doctrine strikes again, ever redefining the Faith once for all delivered unto the saints
one given it by the
Church herself in her understanding of herself as the pillar and
ground of truth (see Tim 3:15) against which the gates of hell cannot
prevail (Mt 16:18; Gal 1:Cool, and as the community to which Christ
himself has entrusted his saving word and work. According to her own
understanding of the term, the Church teaches that the magisterium is
the authority to teach, in the name of Christ, the truths of Christian
faith and life (morals) and all that is necessary and/or useful for
the proclamation and defense of these truths (see Dei verbum, Cool. This
teaching authority is vested in the college of bishops under the
headship of the chief bishop, the Roman Pontiff, the "concrete center
of unity and head of the whole episcopate," [2] the successor of the
Apostle Peter (see Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, 22; Vatican
Council I, DS 3065-3074).
ah, but then that college of bishops includes a number of "dissidents."  It doesn't seem that your article recognizes that.  And then, "the Roman Pontiff" can overrule any and all of the "college of bishops," which vests that magisterium in him, which raises the question of how the College of Cardinals vest in the chief bishop a "munus" they don't have.

This magisterium, moreover, demands assent to its teachings by the
faithful in virtue of the divine authority vested in it and not simply
in virtue of the contents of the message it teaches (Vatican Council
I, DS 3020). It has authority in teaching all the faithful in keeping
with the inner constitution of the Church itself (Lumen gentium,
23-24). Its teaching, moreover, is an exercise of its pastoral office,
its munus (a term much richer in connotation than our English
"office," connoting a privileged honor and mission [3]), to care for
the "souls" of all the faithful, i.e., to safeguard the divine life
within them.
I cannot reply better than the Eastern Patriarchs did:
Quote
For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
The reverse what you get when you vest the Church in one part as opposed to other parts, rather than a seamless whole.

2. The different ways in which the magisterium is exercised

At times the magisterium proposes matters of faith and morals
infallibly, i.e., with the assurance that what is proposed is
absolutely irreformable and a matter to be held definitively by the
faithful. At other times the magisterium proposes matters of faith and
morals authoritatively and as true, but not in such wise that the
matter proposed is to be held definitively and absolutely. But still
the matter proposed is to be held by the faithful and to be held as
true. Note that the proper way to speak of teachings proposed in this
way is to say that they are authoritatively taught; it is not proper
to say that they are fallibly taught.
distinction without a difference as long as you can't/won't tell what is "infallibly" taught.

A. Infallibly proposed teachings

The magisterium can propose matters infallibly in two different ways.
First, a matter of faith or morals can be solemnly defined by an
ecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff when, "as the supreme
shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, he . . . proclaims by a
definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals" (Vatican I, DS 3074).
a useless term of art as long as "definitive act" is left indefinitely defined.

Secondly, and this is most important to recognize, the magisterium can
propose matters of faith or morals infallibly in the ordinary,
day-to-day exercise of its authority when specific

unspecified
conditions are
fulfilled. These conditions are clearly stated in the Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church of Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium).
no, they are not.
In a
centrally important passage of that document the Council Fathers
declared:

  Although the bishops individually do not enjoy the prerogative of
infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim the teaching of Christ
infallibly, even when they are dispersed throughout the world,
provided that they remain in communion with each other and with the
successor of Peter and that in authoritatively teaching on a matter of
faith and morals they agree in one judgment as that to be held
definitively (25).
again, ingoring those "dissident" bishops.  The majority report on Humanae Vitae being a good example, followed up by the Winnipeg Statement.  And the Vatican's bishops do not remain in communion with each other: the Vatican places value only on their communion with it.

This teaching of Vatican II on the infallible character of
authoritative magisterial teaching in the day-to-day or ordinary
exercise of its authority was by no means a novel teaching of Vatican
II. It had been set forth in the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici (c. 1323,
#2), a canon repeated as canon 74, #2 in the new Codex Iuris Canonici
promulgated in 1983, and drawn almost word for word from Vatican I's
solemn teaching on the same matter (cf. DS 3011). Canon 749, #2 in the
new Codex reads as follows: "The College of Bishops also possesses
infallibility in its teaching . . . when the Bishops, dispersed
throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among
themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same
Roman Pontiff authentically (or authoritatively) teach matters of
faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is
definitively to be held."
so many words used to say nothing.
This key teaching of Lumen gentium makes it quite clear that the
magisterium can (and does) propose teachings on moral matters when the
conditions so clearly described are met.
clearly it does not describe the conditions.  Old legal trick of precision in language carefully evading meaning by cloaking it in detailed vagueries.

If it were so clearly described, their identity would not be so widely disputed.

B. Teachings authoritatively but not infallibly proposed

The magisterium, moreover, is an authoritative teacher of Catholic
faith and morals

but not Catholic theology.  +Sic Maria dixit.  July 27, 2011
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38266.msg608565.html#msg608565

when it exercises its teaching authority in a manner
that is not clearly intended to be infallible.

and how do they make that clear, when they don't clarify when they are "exercising their teaching authority in a manner that is intended to be infallible."

When the bishops teach
on matters of faith and morals in their capacity as bishops, they
"speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their
teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (obsequium
religiosum) of soul.
like those bishops of the Winnipeg Statement, and the HV Majority Report?

This religious submission of will and mind must
be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the
Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it
must be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority is
acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely
adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will" (Lumen gentium,
25). The meaning of this obsequium religiosum will be examined in more
detail below, under #4.
how about according to his unmanifest mind and will, i.e. his usual modus operandi?

3. Are some specific moral norms infallibly proposed by the magisterium?

Every Catholic theologian acknowledges that certain very general moral
norms are infallibly proposed (e.g., one ought to love God and one's
neighbor). But today a key claim made by a good number of Catholic
theologians is that no specific moral norms have been infallibly
taught; indeed, they claim that such specific moral norms (e.g., one
ought never to commit adultery; one ought never intentionally to kill
an innocent human being) cannot be taught infallibly.

Some theologians, for example, Charles E. Curran, appeal to the Code
of Canon Law to support their claim. Thus Curran and several of his
associates appealed in 1969 to paragraph 3 of canon 1323 of the old
1917 Code (in fact, they erroneously cited canon 1223, or perhaps this
was a typographical error), which corresponds to paragraph 3 of canon
749 in the new 1983 Code. [4] This paragraph says that "No doctrine is
to be understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly
demonstrated" (emphasis added). But appeal to this paragraph does not
settle the matter. The paragraph to which Curran (and others) appeal
is explicitly concerned with teachings infallibly defined; it is not
concerned with teachings infallibly proposed by the ordinary,
day-to-day exercise of the magisterium.
a moot question, as the canons don't explicitely delineate between the two.  And since all the disclaimers about the Pope being infallible in anything and everything he says, unless a teaching falls in that "narrow definition" of infallible that is claimed for Pastor Aeternus, one should assUme that, since to not "manifestly demonstrate" is the modus operandi of the ordinary, day-to-day exercise of the magisterium, that such teaching are not infallible.  (note: I didn't say "teach fallibly").

Curran and others who deny
that specific moral norms can be infallibly proposed never consider
whether the conditions for teachings infallibly proposed in this way
have been met.
yes, they do: they just aren't impressed by showing off a halo of infallibility that sheds no light.

As we shall see, evidence supports the position that
the core of Catholic moral teaching has been proposed in this way.

These theologians likewise contend that we come to know all specific
moral norms inductively, by reflecting on shared human experiences in
company with others. They then argue that, since "we can never exclude
the possibility that future experience, hitherto unimagined, might put
a moral problem into a new frame of reference which would call for a
revision of a norm that, when formulated, could not have taken such
experience into account," [5] norms of this kind cannot be universally
true and hence cannot be fit subject matter of infallible teaching.
Here I simply wish to point out that these theologians have not
properly identified the way we come to know specific moral norms. As
St. Thomas and the Catholic tradition hold, the truth of many specific
moral norms, e.g., the precepts of the Decalogue, can be shown in the
light of the primary principles of natural law. [6]
yes, one of the primary sources of error in the Vatican's thinking. And even here, natural law won't save you, e.g. over usury in agrarian society and interest in capitalist ones.

A final reason advanced by these theologians to support their claim
that specific moral norms are rooted in the "concrete" nature of human
beings, not in their "transcendental" or "metaphysical" nature, and
that man's "concrete" nature is subject to radical change. This
position, rooted in Rahnerian thought, ignores the fact that human
nature cannot substantively change if men are to remain men and if
Christ shared Adam's and our human nature. It also ignores the truth
that the goods perfective of human persons, the goods to which we are
ordered by our natural inclinations, the goods at stake in moral
choices, are the same for us as they were for Adam, goods such as life
itself, living in harmony and fellowship with others, knowledge of the
truth, etc. [7]
correctly stated, but with no followup.

On the other hand, many theologians today (and the whole body of
theologians prior to Vatican Council II)
gee, what happened at Vatican Council II?

recognize that the core of
Catholic moral teaching, as set forth in the precepts of the Decalogue
as these precepts have been and are understood within the Church
itself, has been infallibly proposed by the ordinary, day-to-day
exercise of the magisterium by bishops dispersed throughout the world
yet in union with one another and with the Holy Father. For this
magisterium has proposed, as a matter definitively to be held, that it
is always gravely immoral intentionally to kill the innocent,

yes, I'm sure the victims of the Inquisition and the children of the Albigensians ("Kill them all, let God sort them out"), not to mention the youngin's that the Crusaders came across were aware of that.

to
commit adultery (or fornication or sodomy), etc.
dispensations could be and have been and are to be had.

This was the
understanding of the Church Fathers, of medieval theologians such as
Thomas Aquinas, etc. It was the firm teaching of the Catechism of the
Council of Trent, and it was commonly taught by all theologians prior
to Vatican II, as attested to in a remarkable text of Karl Rahner in
his book Nature and Grace, published in English in 1963. Although he
never formally repudiated what he had said in that book, Rahner
subsequently claimed that the magisterium cannot infallibly teach
specific moral norms insofar as they are concerned with man's concrete
human nature. But, as we have seen, this view cannot be sustained.
not here, we haven't.
What caused Rahner to change his mind, apparently, was Humanae Vitae;
for nothing in the text of the documents of Vatican II can be used to
support this view.

Moreover, and this is very important, Pope John Paul II in Evangelium
Vitae explicitly referred to the key passage in Lumen Gentium, 25,
identifying the conditions under which the ordinary, day-to-day
exercise of the magisterium can propose truths infallibly. He did so
in affirming as solemnly as he could without making an ex cathedra
pronouncement the truth of the Church's teaching on
a the absolute inviolability of innocent human life from intentional
attack (Evangelium Vitae, 57),
b the intrinsically evil character of intentional abortion (Ibid., 62) and
c the intrinsically evil character of all forms of euthanasia or mercy
killing (Ibid., 65).
if he could (and should) have made an infallible statement ex cathedra, the fact that he avoided it strengthens the argument that it is not infallible: if it were infallible, why avoid treating it as such.

4. The response due moral teachings authoritatively but not infallibly proposed

I have argued that the central core of Catholic moral teaching has
been infallibly proposed by the ordinary magisterium. Even if one were
to disagree with this argument (which I believe is sound), one must
acknowledge that the magisterium does teach with a more than merely
human authority on moral questions. Moreover, it proposes moral norms
not as legalistic rules but as truths of Christian life. Moral
teachings authoritatively but not infallibly proposed as true are
binding upon the consciences of the faithful, including pope, bishops,
theologians, and ordinary laypeople.
IOW the infallible/fallible distinction is without a difference.

All the faithful are to give
these teachings a religious submission (obsequium religiosum) of will
and mind. Teachings authoritatively proposed are proposed as true, not
as opinions or "prudential guidelines."

Still, such teachings are not infallibly proposed; they are not
proposed as "definitively to be held." This raises the question of the
nature of the "religious submission" of will and mind and the question
of dissent. Precisely what does this entail?
that they indefintively hold them.

5. The nature of the "obsequium religiosum" and the question of dissent

It is interesting to note that the term "dissent" did not appear in
theological literature prior to the end of Vatican Council II. The
"approved" manuals to which the three bishops, who wanted Lumen
gentium 25 to say something about the nature of the obsequium
religiosum required for teaching authoritatively but not infallibly
proposed, were referred did not speak of legitimate theological
dissent from such teaching. [8] Rather, they recognized that a
theologian (or other well-informed Catholic) might not in conscience
be able to give internal assent to some teachings. They thus spoke of
"withholding assent" and raising questions, but this is a far cry from
"dissent."
except if the withholder of assent wears a mitre.

The Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian issued by
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has addressed this
matter. It recognized that theologians (and others) might question not
only the form but even the substantive content of some authoritatively
proposed magisterial teachings. It held that it is permissible in such
instances to withhold assent, to raise questions (and present them to
the magisterium), to discuss the issues with other theologians (and be
humble enough to accept criticism of one's own views by them).
Theologians (and others) can propose their views as hypotheses to be
considered and tested by other theologians and ultimately to be judged
by those who have, within the Church, the solemn obligation of
settling disputes and speaking the mind of Christ.

But it taught one is not giving a true obsequium religiosum if one
dissents from magisterial teaching and proposes one's own position as
a position that the faithful are at liberty to follow, substituting it
for the teaching of the magisterium.
then the magisterium shold be clear, backing up its claims of clarity.

But this is precisely what has
been occurring. Dissent of this kind is not compatible with the
obsequium religiosum. In fact, those who dissent in this way really
usurp the teaching office of bishops and popes. Theologians, insofar
as they are theologians, are not pastors in the Church. When they
instruct the faithful that the teachings of those who are pastors in
the Church (the pope and bishops) are false and that the faithful can
put those teachings aside and put in their place their own theological
opinions, they are harming the Church and arrogantly assuming for
themselves the pastoral role of pope and bishops.
Actually, it seems the Vatican's bishops and popes have appropriated the magisterium which had formed amidst its theologicans.

Dissent, understood in this sense, is thus completely incompatible
with the obsequium religiosum required for teachings authoritatively
but not infallibly proposed.

This article originally appeared in the May/June 2000 issue of Catholic Dossier.
is that like the Preachers Hymnal for the Choir?

Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2011, 12:26:50 PM »

Authority and Dissent in the Catholic Church | Dr. William E. May |
IgnatiusInsight.com

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/wmay_authority_nov06.asp

What is the role of the Church as moral teacher, and what is the
obligation on the part of the faithful (including the pope, bishops,
theologians, and ordinary laypeople) to choose in accordance with the
moral norms proposed by the Church's teaching authority? Can dissent
from such teaching be legitimate? To answer these questions it will be
useful to consider

  1. teaching authority in the Church;
  2. the ways in which this authority is exercised;
  3. whether specific moral norms have been taught infallibly by the
Church's teaching authority;
  4. the kind of response due to moral teachings that have not been
proposed infallibly;
  5. the question of dissent.

1. Teaching authority (magisterium) within the Church

As scholars such as the late great Dominican theologian, Yves Cardinal
Congar, have noted, the term magisterium has such a long history and
during the Middle Ages it referred to the teaching authority proper to
theologians, i.e., those who by study and diligence have achieved some
understanding of the truths of the faith and their relationship to
truths that can be known without the light of faith. [1]


Avery Cardinal Dulles has a very good text from Ave Maria Press's Introductions to Catholic Doctrine,  in 2007, where he presents historical chapters about the concept of "magisterium"...In order to really grasp what Father William is saying here it is necessary to know what period one is speaking about in the "middle ages" since the rise of the university did not automatically produce what we now understand as "professional" theologians.   Even today it is necessary to be able to discern who are the holy men of letters in the Church and who are the overtly secularized/professional theologians who are often neither holy nor faithful.

I would recommend Cardinal Dulles's text since it appears that Father Avery was both a prayerful priest, and a faithful priest and confessor. 

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary  in the Church, east or west.

So Father May is pointing to a very particular period in the history of the concept in order to lay the grounds for making a comparison to today.

There never was a time in the Church when the concept of magisterial teaching ever was entirely divorced from the episcopate.  Just didn't happen and if Father May gives that impression then that is indeed a weakness in his article...But I don't think that was his intent.  He was not writing a book nor was he writing for a hostile audience.

M.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 12:55:24 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2011, 04:49:42 PM »

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary  in the Church, east or west.
Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).
Logged

Silly Stars
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2011, 05:46:11 PM »

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary  in the Church, east or west.
Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).
no debate about it.

And they are so close to seeing what is the nature of teaching authority in the Church:
Quote
The prerogatives of this teaching authority are made sufficiently clear by the texts and they are to a certain extent implied in the very institution. The Church, according to St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy, is the pillar and ground of truth; the Apostles and consequently their successors have the right to impose their doctrine; whosoever refuses to believe them shall be condemned, whosoever rejects anything is shipwrecked in the Faith. This authority is therefore infallible. And this infallibility is guaranteed implicitly but directly by the promise of the Saviour: "Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." Briefly the Church continues Christ in its mission to teach as in its mission to sanctify; its power is the same as that which He received from His Father and, as He came full of truth no less than of grace, the Church is likewise an institution of truth as it is an institution of grace. This doctrine was intended to be spread throughout the world despite so many obstacles of every kind, and the accomplishment of the task required miracles. So did Christ give to his Apostles the miraculous power which guaranteed their teaching. As He Himself confirmed His words by His works He wished that they also should present with their doctrine unexceptionable motives for credibility. Their miracles were the Divine seals of their mission and their Apostolate. The Divine seal has always been stamped on the teaching authority. It is not necessary that every missionary should work miracles, the Church herself is an ever-living miracle, bearing always on her brow the unexceptionable witness that God is with her.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 05:54:36 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2011, 06:42:53 PM »

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary  in the Church, east or west.
Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).

Father Hans always had a problem with authority.  He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2011, 06:52:06 PM »

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary  in the Church, east or west.
Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).
Father Hans always had a problem with authority.  He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.
Logged

Silly Stars
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2011, 06:53:05 PM »

You have not idea really what you are talking about here.  Not a clue.
Our readers will judge that, now won't they?

Most of the active readers here don't have the skills so there will be no real discernment.

They will choose based upon your affiliation or mine.
No, because I don't offer any Kool Aid.
I'd rather have a gallon of Kool Aid than one puff of opium from the Phanar and Co.

I'd rather breathe my lovely church incense than the smoke of Satan which the Popes say has invaded the Hill of Sorcerers (Mon Vaticanus.)

Context Chicky...Context!!

Yes context. O God pplease, make that protestant novus order mass disapear. Please! I implore, beg this protestant innovation goes away with its ridiculous alter facing the people instead salvation, please...make it go away...
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2011, 06:55:07 PM »

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary  in the Church, east or west.
Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).
Father Hans always had a problem with authority.  He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.

Ya...I got that...what you miss is that Mr. Kung leaves out the part where Father Yves says that the authority is divine in origin and is simply the living exercise of a living Church, and becomes organized and expressed in the canons some centuries later.

Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,458


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2011, 06:55:21 PM »

Another outburst of the same shenanigans by the same usual players has been moved to Religious Topics.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37983.msg632988.html#msg632988
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 06:57:39 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2011, 06:57:51 PM »

Delendum
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 07:26:57 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2011, 07:00:17 PM »

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary  in the Church, east or west.
Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).
Father Hans always had a problem with authority.  He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.

Ya...I got that...what you miss is that Mr. Kung leaves out the part where Father Yves says that the authority is divine in origin and is simply the living exercise of a living Church, and becomes organized and expressed in the canons some centuries later.


Cardinal Yves Congar said their was not so much of a *germ* of what developed into the idea of papal infallibility before the thirteenth century.

If there is no historical trace in the entire first millennium of Christianity, indeed it is a living exercise -ala the magic of Hegelian dialectic, but to suppose papal infallibility goes back to the time of the Gospels, or even before the thirteenth century, is something Cardinal Congar explicitly disavowed.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 07:02:46 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2011, 07:05:24 PM »

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary  in the Church, east or west.
Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).
Father Hans always had a problem with authority.  He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.

Ya...I got that...what you miss is that Mr. Kung leaves out the part where Father Yves says that the authority is divine in origin and is simply the living exercise of a living Church, and becomes organized and expressed in the canons some centuries later.


Cardinal Yves Congar said their was not so much of a *germ* of what developed into the idea of papal infallibility before the thirteenth century.

If there is no historical trace in the entire first millennium of Christianity, indeed it is a living exercise -ala the magic of Hegelian dialectic, but to suppose papal infallibility goes back to the time of the Gospels, or even before the thirteenth century, is something Cardinal Congar explicitly disavowed.

The infallibility of the papal office is the infallibility of the Church.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.  Professor Congar is one of my favorites.  I do not need to agree with every one of HIS teachings.  I do need to agree with my Church.
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2011, 07:23:04 PM »

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary  in the Church, east or west.
Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).
Father Hans always had a problem with authority.  He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.

Ya...I got that...what you miss is that Mr. Kung leaves out the part where Father Yves says that the authority is divine in origin and is simply the living exercise of a living Church, and becomes organized and expressed in the canons some centuries later.


Cardinal Yves Congar said their was not so much of a *germ* of what developed into the idea of papal infallibility before the thirteenth century.

If there is no historical trace in the entire first millennium of Christianity, indeed it is a living exercise -ala the magic of Hegelian dialectic, but to suppose papal infallibility goes back to the time of the Gospels, or even before the thirteenth century, is something Cardinal Congar explicitly disavowed.

The infallibility of the papal office is the infallibility of the Church.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.  Professor Congar is one of my favorites.  I do not need to agree with every one of HIS teachings.  I do need to agree with my Church.
As far as I know Cardinal Congar never denied believing in papal infallibility "today"; his point was that there was not even a germ of what developed into papal infallibility before the thirteenth century (the view of mainstream historical scholarship generally). It does require a rather radical notion of development, but are you saying you don't think Cardinal Congar was a faithful Catholic in his manner of personal acceptance of the idea while also affirming that its only basis lies in development but not in first millennium Christian history?
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 07:32:00 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2011, 07:25:33 PM »

The infallibility of the papal office is the infallibility of the Church.
Pope Zosimos, Pope Vigilius, Pope Honorios....

That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
No, that is the teaching of the Vatican (although ya'll keep denying that, saying that the other bishops have a share). The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church knows nothing of such heterodox nonsense.


Professor Congar is one of my favorites.  I do not need to agree with every one of HIS teachings.  I do need to agree with my Church.

So, which is it EM?  Does your supreme pontiff have 51% of your "church's infallibility," or doesn't he?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2011, 07:28:16 PM »

You have not idea really what you are talking about here.  Not a clue.


Authority and Dissent in the Catholic Church | Dr. William E. May |
IgnatiusInsight.com

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/wmay_authority_nov06.asp

What is the role of the Church as moral teacher, and what is the
obligation on the part of the faithful (including the pope, bishops,
theologians, and ordinary laypeople) to choose in accordance with the
moral norms proposed by the Church's teaching authority? Can dissent
from such teaching be legitimate? To answer these questions it will be
useful to consider

  1. teaching authority in the Church;
  2. the ways in which this authority is exercised;
  3. whether specific moral norms have been taught infallibly by the
Church's teaching authority;
  4. the kind of response due to moral teachings that have not been
proposed infallibly;
  5. the question of dissent.
6. how this authority specifies what is infallible, and what specifically are those norms.


1. Teaching authority (magisterium) within the Church

As scholars such as the late great Dominican theologian, Yves Cardinal
Congar, have noted, the term magisterium has such a long history and
during the Middle Ages it referred to the teaching authority proper to
theologians, i.e., those who by study and diligence have achieved some
understanding of the truths of the faith and their relationship to
truths that can be known without the light of faith. [1]
this is a problem, as there is the assertion of a "magisterium of theologians," against which those who deny it hold that in the hierarchy of theological certitude that they are not even ordinary magisterium, the degree of certitude is fallible, and they have no assent required.  It that is true, then that applies to the long history refered to here when "magisterium" meant the theologians' teaching authority, and not, as now, the theologians are defined as opposed (meaning not part of) the "magisterium.
"Donum Veritatis" Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologian
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

But today this term has a very precise meaning,

development of doctrine strikes again, ever redefining the Faith once for all delivered unto the saints
one given it by the
Church herself in her understanding of herself as the pillar and
ground of truth (see Tim 3:15) against which the gates of hell cannot
prevail (Mt 16:18; Gal 1:Cool, and as the community to which Christ
himself has entrusted his saving word and work. According to her own
understanding of the term, the Church teaches that the magisterium is
the authority to teach, in the name of Christ, the truths of Christian
faith and life (morals) and all that is necessary and/or useful for
the proclamation and defense of these truths (see Dei verbum, Cool. This
teaching authority is vested in the college of bishops under the
headship of the chief bishop, the Roman Pontiff, the "concrete center
of unity and head of the whole episcopate," [2] the successor of the
Apostle Peter (see Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, 22; Vatican
Council I, DS 3065-3074).
ah, but then that college of bishops includes a number of "dissidents."  It doesn't seem that your article recognizes that.  And then, "the Roman Pontiff" can overrule any and all of the "college of bishops," which vests that magisterium in him, which raises the question of how the College of Cardinals vest in the chief bishop a "munus" they don't have.

This magisterium, moreover, demands assent to its teachings by the
faithful in virtue of the divine authority vested in it and not simply
in virtue of the contents of the message it teaches (Vatican Council
I, DS 3020). It has authority in teaching all the faithful in keeping
with the inner constitution of the Church itself (Lumen gentium,
23-24). Its teaching, moreover, is an exercise of its pastoral office,
its munus (a term much richer in connotation than our English
"office," connoting a privileged honor and mission [3]), to care for
the "souls" of all the faithful, i.e., to safeguard the divine life
within them.
I cannot reply better than the Eastern Patriarchs did:
Quote
For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
The reverse what you get when you vest the Church in one part as opposed to other parts, rather than a seamless whole.

2. The different ways in which the magisterium is exercised

At times the magisterium proposes matters of faith and morals
infallibly, i.e., with the assurance that what is proposed is
absolutely irreformable and a matter to be held definitively by the
faithful. At other times the magisterium proposes matters of faith and
morals authoritatively and as true, but not in such wise that the
matter proposed is to be held definitively and absolutely. But still
the matter proposed is to be held by the faithful and to be held as
true. Note that the proper way to speak of teachings proposed in this
way is to say that they are authoritatively taught; it is not proper
to say that they are fallibly taught.
distinction without a difference as long as you can't/won't tell what is "infallibly" taught.

A. Infallibly proposed teachings

The magisterium can propose matters infallibly in two different ways.
First, a matter of faith or morals can be solemnly defined by an
ecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff when, "as the supreme
shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, he . . . proclaims by a
definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals" (Vatican I, DS 3074).
a useless term of art as long as "definitive act" is left indefinitely defined.

Secondly, and this is most important to recognize, the magisterium can
propose matters of faith or morals infallibly in the ordinary,
day-to-day exercise of its authority when specific

unspecified
conditions are
fulfilled. These conditions are clearly stated in the Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church of Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium).
no, they are not.
In a
centrally important passage of that document the Council Fathers
declared:

  Although the bishops individually do not enjoy the prerogative of
infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim the teaching of Christ
infallibly, even when they are dispersed throughout the world,
provided that they remain in communion with each other and with the
successor of Peter and that in authoritatively teaching on a matter of
faith and morals they agree in one judgment as that to be held
definitively (25).
again, ingoring those "dissident" bishops.  The majority report on Humanae Vitae being a good example, followed up by the Winnipeg Statement.  And the Vatican's bishops do not remain in communion with each other: the Vatican places value only on their communion with it.

This teaching of Vatican II on the infallible character of
authoritative magisterial teaching in the day-to-day or ordinary
exercise of its authority was by no means a novel teaching of Vatican
II. It had been set forth in the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici (c. 1323,
#2), a canon repeated as canon 74, #2 in the new Codex Iuris Canonici
promulgated in 1983, and drawn almost word for word from Vatican I's
solemn teaching on the same matter (cf. DS 3011). Canon 749, #2 in the
new Codex reads as follows: "The College of Bishops also possesses
infallibility in its teaching . . . when the Bishops, dispersed
throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among
themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same
Roman Pontiff authentically (or authoritatively) teach matters of
faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is
definitively to be held."
so many words used to say nothing.
This key teaching of Lumen gentium makes it quite clear that the
magisterium can (and does) propose teachings on moral matters when the
conditions so clearly described are met.
clearly it does not describe the conditions.  Old legal trick of precision in language carefully evading meaning by cloaking it in detailed vagueries.

If it were so clearly described, their identity would not be so widely disputed.

B. Teachings authoritatively but not infallibly proposed

The magisterium, moreover, is an authoritative teacher of Catholic
faith and morals

but not Catholic theology.  +Sic Maria dixit.  July 27, 2011
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38266.msg608565.html#msg608565

when it exercises its teaching authority in a manner
that is not clearly intended to be infallible.

and how do they make that clear, when they don't clarify when they are "exercising their teaching authority in a manner that is intended to be infallible."

When the bishops teach
on matters of faith and morals in their capacity as bishops, they
"speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their
teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (obsequium
religiosum) of soul.
like those bishops of the Winnipeg Statement, and the HV Majority Report?

This religious submission of will and mind must
be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the
Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it
must be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority is
acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely
adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will" (Lumen gentium,
25). The meaning of this obsequium religiosum will be examined in more
detail below, under #4.
how about according to his unmanifest mind and will, i.e. his usual modus operandi?

3. Are some specific moral norms infallibly proposed by the magisterium?

Every Catholic theologian acknowledges that certain very general moral
norms are infallibly proposed (e.g., one ought to love God and one's
neighbor). But today a key claim made by a good number of Catholic
theologians is that no specific moral norms have been infallibly
taught; indeed, they claim that such specific moral norms (e.g., one
ought never to commit adultery; one ought never intentionally to kill
an innocent human being) cannot be taught infallibly.

Some theologians, for example, Charles E. Curran, appeal to the Code
of Canon Law to support their claim. Thus Curran and several of his
associates appealed in 1969 to paragraph 3 of canon 1323 of the old
1917 Code (in fact, they erroneously cited canon 1223, or perhaps this
was a typographical error), which corresponds to paragraph 3 of canon
749 in the new 1983 Code. [4] This paragraph says that "No doctrine is
to be understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly
demonstrated" (emphasis added). But appeal to this paragraph does not
settle the matter. The paragraph to which Curran (and others) appeal
is explicitly concerned with teachings infallibly defined; it is not
concerned with teachings infallibly proposed by the ordinary,
day-to-day exercise of the magisterium.
a moot question, as the canons don't explicitely delineate between the two.  And since all the disclaimers about the Pope being infallible in anything and everything he says, unless a teaching falls in that "narrow definition" of infallible that is claimed for Pastor Aeternus, one should assUme that, since to not "manifestly demonstrate" is the modus operandi of the ordinary, day-to-day exercise of the magisterium, that such teaching are not infallible.  (note: I didn't say "teach fallibly").

Curran and others who deny
that specific moral norms can be infallibly proposed never consider
whether the conditions for teachings infallibly proposed in this way
have been met.
yes, they do: they just aren't impressed by showing off a halo of infallibility that sheds no light.

As we shall see, evidence supports the position that
the core of Catholic moral teaching has been proposed in this way.

These theologians likewise contend that we come to know all specific
moral norms inductively, by reflecting on shared human experiences in
company with others. They then argue that, since "we can never exclude
the possibility that future experience, hitherto unimagined, might put
a moral problem into a new frame of reference which would call for a
revision of a norm that, when formulated, could not have taken such
experience into account," [5] norms of this kind cannot be universally
true and hence cannot be fit subject matter of infallible teaching.
Here I simply wish to point out that these theologians have not
properly identified the way we come to know specific moral norms. As
St. Thomas and the Catholic tradition hold, the truth of many specific
moral norms, e.g., the precepts of the Decalogue, can be shown in the
light of the primary principles of natural law. [6]
yes, one of the primary sources of error in the Vatican's thinking. And even here, natural law won't save you, e.g. over usury in agrarian society and interest in capitalist ones.

A final reason advanced by these theologians to support their claim
that specific moral norms are rooted in the "concrete" nature of human
beings, not in their "transcendental" or "metaphysical" nature, and
that man's "concrete" nature is subject to radical change. This
position, rooted in Rahnerian thought, ignores the fact that human
nature cannot substantively change if men are to remain men and if
Christ shared Adam's and our human nature. It also ignores the truth
that the goods perfective of human persons, the goods to which we are
ordered by our natural inclinations, the goods at stake in moral
choices, are the same for us as they were for Adam, goods such as life
itself, living in harmony and fellowship with others, knowledge of the
truth, etc. [7]
correctly stated, but with no followup.

On the other hand, many theologians today (and the whole body of
theologians prior to Vatican Council II)
gee, what happened at Vatican Council II?

recognize that the core of
Catholic moral teaching, as set forth in the precepts of the Decalogue
as these precepts have been and are understood within the Church
itself, has been infallibly proposed by the ordinary, day-to-day
exercise of the magisterium by bishops dispersed throughout the world
yet in union with one another and with the Holy Father. For this
magisterium has proposed, as a matter definitively to be held, that it
is always gravely immoral intentionally to kill the innocent,

yes, I'm sure the victims of the Inquisition and the children of the Albigensians ("Kill them all, let God sort them out"), not to mention the youngin's that the Crusaders came across were aware of that.

to
commit adultery (or fornication or sodomy), etc.
dispensations could be and have been and are to be had.

This was the
understanding of the Church Fathers, of medieval theologians such as
Thomas Aquinas, etc. It was the firm teaching of the Catechism of the
Council of Trent, and it was commonly taught by all theologians prior
to Vatican II, as attested to in a remarkable text of Karl Rahner in
his book Nature and Grace, published in English in 1963. Although he
never formally repudiated what he had said in that book, Rahner
subsequently claimed that the magisterium cannot infallibly teach
specific moral norms insofar as they are concerned with man's concrete
human nature. But, as we have seen, this view cannot be sustained.
not here, we haven't.
What caused Rahner to change his mind, apparently, was Humanae Vitae;
for nothing in the text of the documents of Vatican II can be used to
support this view.

Moreover, and this is very important, Pope John Paul II in Evangelium
Vitae explicitly referred to the key passage in Lumen Gentium, 25,
identifying the conditions under which the ordinary, day-to-day
exercise of the magisterium can propose truths infallibly. He did so
in affirming as solemnly as he could without making an ex cathedra
pronouncement the truth of the Church's teaching on
a the absolute inviolability of innocent human life from intentional
attack (Evangelium Vitae, 57),
b the intrinsically evil character of intentional abortion (Ibid., 62) and
c the intrinsically evil character of all forms of euthanasia or mercy
killing (Ibid., 65).
if he could (and should) have made an infallible statement ex cathedra, the fact that he avoided it strengthens the argument that it is not infallible: if it were infallible, why avoid treating it as such.

4. The response due moral teachings authoritatively but not infallibly proposed

I have argued that the central core of Catholic moral teaching has
been infallibly proposed by the ordinary magisterium. Even if one were
to disagree with this argument (which I believe is sound), one must
acknowledge that the magisterium does teach with a more than merely
human authority on moral questions. Moreover, it proposes moral norms
not as legalistic rules but as truths of Christian life. Moral
teachings authoritatively but not infallibly proposed as true are
binding upon the consciences of the faithful, including pope, bishops,
theologians, and ordinary laypeople.
IOW the infallible/fallible distinction is without a difference.

All the faithful are to give
these teachings a religious submission (obsequium religiosum) of will
and mind. Teachings authoritatively proposed are proposed as true, not
as opinions or "prudential guidelines."

Still, such teachings are not infallibly proposed; they are not
proposed as "definitively to be held." This raises the question of the
nature of the "religious submission" of will and mind and the question
of dissent. Precisely what does this entail?
that they indefintively hold them.

5. The nature of the "obsequium religiosum" and the question of dissent

It is interesting to note that the term "dissent" did not appear in
theological literature prior to the end of Vatican Council II. The
"approved" manuals to which the three bishops, who wanted Lumen
gentium 25 to say something about the nature of the obsequium
religiosum required for teaching authoritatively but not infallibly
proposed, were referred did not speak of legitimate theological
dissent from such teaching. [8] Rather, they recognized that a
theologian (or other well-informed Catholic) might not in conscience
be able to give internal assent to some teachings. They thus spoke of
"withholding assent" and raising questions, but this is a far cry from
"dissent."
except if the withholder of assent wears a mitre.

The Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian issued by
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has addressed this
matter. It recognized that theologians (and others) might question not
only the form but even the substantive content of some authoritatively
proposed magisterial teachings. It held that it is permissible in such
instances to withhold assent, to raise questions (and present them to
the magisterium), to discuss the issues with other theologians (and be
humble enough to accept criticism of one's own views by them).
Theologians (and others) can propose their views as hypotheses to be
considered and tested by other theologians and ultimately to be judged
by those who have, within the Church, the solemn obligation of
settling disputes and speaking the mind of Christ.

But it taught one is not giving a true obsequium religiosum if one
dissents from magisterial teaching and proposes one's own position as
a position that the faithful are at liberty to follow, substituting it
for the teaching of the magisterium.
then the magisterium shold be clear, backing up its claims of clarity.

But this is precisely what has
been occurring. Dissent of this kind is not compatible with the
obsequium religiosum. In fact, those who dissent in this way really
usurp the teaching office of bishops and popes. Theologians, insofar
as they are theologians, are not pastors in the Church. When they
instruct the faithful that the teachings of those who are pastors in
the Church (the pope and bishops) are false and that the faithful can
put those teachings aside and put in their place their own theological
opinions, they are harming the Church and arrogantly assuming for
themselves the pastoral role of pope and bishops.
Actually, it seems the Vatican's bishops and popes have appropriated the magisterium which had formed amidst its theologicans.

Dissent, understood in this sense, is thus completely incompatible
with the obsequium religiosum required for teachings authoritatively
but not infallibly proposed.

This article originally appeared in the May/June 2000 issue of Catholic Dossier.
is that like the Preachers Hymnal for the Choir?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37983.msg632988.html#msg632988
Another outburst of the same shenanigans by the same usual players has been moved to Religious Topics.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37983.msg632988.html#msg632988

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2011, 07:35:18 PM »


As far as I know Cardinal Congar never denied believing in papal infallibility "today"; his point was that there was not even a germ of what developed into papal infallibility before the thirteenth century (the view of mainstream historical scholarship generally). It does require a rather radical notion of development, but are you saying you don't think Cardinal Congar was a faithful Catholic in his manner of personal acceptance of the idea while also affirming that its only basis lies in development but not in first millennium Christian history?
[/quote]

Unless I can see his text I cannot comment further.  It is possible that he sees papal infallibility and ecclesial infallibility as two different things.  That is not how his Church presents it but I can only guess without the text in front of me.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2011, 07:43:02 PM »

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary  in the Church, east or west.
Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).
Father Hans always had a problem with authority.  He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.

Ya...I got that...what you miss is that Mr. Kung leaves out the part where Father Yves says that the authority is divine in origin and is simply the living exercise of a living Church, and becomes organized and expressed in the canons some centuries later.


Cardinal Yves Congar said their was not so much of a *germ* of what developed into the idea of papal infallibility before the thirteenth century.

If there is no historical trace in the entire first millennium of Christianity, indeed it is a living exercise -ala the magic of Hegelian dialectic, but to suppose papal infallibility goes back to the time of the Gospels, or even before the thirteenth century, is something Cardinal Congar explicitly disavowed.

The infallibility of the papal office is the infallibility of the Church.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.  

The official definition does not quite line up with your wishful thinking......which is typical Malus Ordo wishy-washy stuff.

The infallibility of the Pope is a personal charism of his which he possesses by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of the Apostle Peter.   It is exercised by the Pope for the good of the Church.  
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 07:44:44 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2011, 07:43:59 PM »

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary  in the Church, east or west.
Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).

Father Hans always had a problem with authority.  He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.
I don't think Fr. Kueng was make a legal charge of forgery against the Vatican.  If it makes you feel better we can say "false decretals."

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.
I've never heard of Fr. Kueng shutting up. Can you tell us the tale?

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...
care to cite him on that......?

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.
If you take rejecting the Donation of Constantine et alia as an attack on your church....the Vatican, you are only admitting that it is not founded on the Rock of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church...our Church.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2011, 07:47:40 PM »

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary  in the Church, east or west.
Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).
Father Hans always had a problem with authority.  He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.

Ya...I got that...what you miss is that Mr. Kung leaves out the part where Father Yves says that the authority is divine in origin and is simply the living exercise of a living Church, and becomes organized and expressed in the canons some centuries later.


Cardinal Yves Congar said their was not so much of a *germ* of what developed into the idea of papal infallibility before the thirteenth century.

If there is no historical trace in the entire first millennium of Christianity, indeed it is a living exercise -ala the magic of Hegelian dialectic, but to suppose papal infallibility goes back to the time of the Gospels, or even before the thirteenth century, is something Cardinal Congar explicitly disavowed.

The infallibility of the papal office is the infallibility of the Church.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.  

The official definition does not quite line up with your wishful thinking......which is typical Malus Ordo wishy-washy stuff.

The infallibility of the Pope is a personal charism of his which he possesses by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of the Apostle Peter.   It is exercised by the Pope for the good of the Church.  
Indeed!  Pastor Aeternus explicitely denies that said office is derived from the Church, and even Lumen Gentium reiterates that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 03, 2011, 07:50:04 PM »


The official definition does not quite line up with your wishful thinking......which is typical Malus Ordo wishy-washy stuff.

The infallibility of the Pope is a personal charism of his which he possesses by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of the Apostle Peter.   It is exercised by the Pope for the good of the Church.  

Sure it does.  It is a charism granted to the person of the pope by virtue of the papal office, which can never be found to contradict Scripture and Tradition, the font of revealed truth.  That is the root and branch of the infallibility of the Church.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2011, 07:52:29 PM »

The history of the concept of magisterial teaching is as old as the gospels, long before the extended influence of the university or seminary  in the Church, east or west.
Debatable.

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries... (Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (NY: Penguin, 2003), pp. 60-61).
Father Hans always had a problem with authority.  He NEEDS it to be legal so he can take legitimate pot shots at it.

When authority is divine then he knows he has to go sit down and shut up.

He'll never fully concede the divine origins of the Church's obligatory authority to teach...

Again you use the attacks of a dissenting priest to attack the Catholic Church...my Church.

M.

Albeit Fr. Hans Kung is citing the scholarship of Yves Congar who was made a Cardinal in your church 8 months before his death.

Ya...I got that...what you miss is that Mr. Kung leaves out the part where Father Yves says that the authority is divine in origin and is simply the living exercise of a living Church, and becomes organized and expressed in the canons some centuries later.


Cardinal Yves Congar said their was not so much of a *germ* of what developed into the idea of papal infallibility before the thirteenth century.

If there is no historical trace in the entire first millennium of Christianity, indeed it is a living exercise -ala the magic of Hegelian dialectic, but to suppose papal infallibility goes back to the time of the Gospels, or even before the thirteenth century, is something Cardinal Congar explicitly disavowed.

The infallibility of the papal office is the infallibility of the Church.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church. 

The official definition does not quite line up with your wishful thinking......which is typical Malus Ordo wishy-washy stuff.

The infallibility of the Pope is a personal charism of his which he possesses by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of the Apostle Peter.   It is exercised by the Pope for the good of the Church. 
Indeed!  Pastor Aeternus explicitely denies that said office is derived from the Church, and even Lumen Gentium reiterates that.

When will that girl ever go back and study her catechism?!

Btw, I saw your photo on the Facebook page for this list.  What a surprise!  For years I have had this image of an ancient scholar hunched over his desk!  But not at all!   laugh
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2011, 08:05:11 PM »


The official definition does not quite line up with your wishful thinking......which is typical Malus Ordo wishy-washy stuff.

The infallibility of the Pope is a personal charism of his which he possesses by virtue of his office (munus) as the successor of the Apostle Peter.   It is exercised by the Pope for the good of the Church.  

Sure it does.  It is a charism granted to the person of the pope by virtue of the papal office,
yeah, can you FINALLY reveal the secret of how that supposedly is transmitted?  How does an office, an abstraction, have a charism?

which can never be found to contradict Scripture and Tradition,
and yet is has, ever since Galatians and the Gospel of Matthew (16:22), and the Paschal Contraversy of Pope St. Victor, long before it was ever dreamed up.

the font of revealed truth.
 


That is the root and branch of the infallibility of the Church.
That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 03, 2011, 08:56:46 PM »

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

You can keep your flimsy grey fog...you and Ambrose the Grey.

I've never met two men more proud of not being able to make a declarative sentence except when it comes to some OTHER Church.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 08:57:37 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,652


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 03, 2011, 09:16:04 PM »

That's funny, they were fine with St. Peter's authority when he was in Antioch, but when he left them for another city, a more important one, his aegis as Prince of the Apostles suddenly vanished!  Tongue  Huh

Something's funny here. I think the Antiochian supremacists just can't handle the fact that they got dumped.

Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #26 on: September 03, 2011, 09:22:27 PM »

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

You can keep your flimsy grey fog...you and Ambrose the Grey.

I've never met two men more proud of not being able to make a declarative sentence except when it comes to some OTHER Church.

Allow me...... the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of which the Creed speaks is the contemporary Orthodox Church and only the Orthodox Church.  Declarative enough for you?


2007..... The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox
International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that
the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the
indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in
similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way
undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed
speaks."

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2



Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #27 on: September 03, 2011, 09:23:45 PM »

That's funny, they were fine with St. Peter's authority when he was in Antioch, but when he left them for another city, a more important one, his aegis as Prince of the Apostles suddenly vanished!  Tongue  Huh

Something's funny here. I think the Antiochian supremacists just can't handle the fact that they got dumped.



What a lot of fromage!   laugh
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 03, 2011, 09:29:08 PM »

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

You can keep your flimsy grey fog...you and Ambrose the Grey.

I've never met two men more proud of not being able to make a declarative sentence except when it comes to some OTHER Church.

Allow me...... the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of which the Creed speaks is the contemporary Orthodox Church and only the Orthodox Church.  Declarative enough for you?


2007..... The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox
International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that
the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the
indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in
similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way
undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed
speaks."

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2



Yep...my universal Church can say the same thing and a whole lot more...You know...that Catechism that you sent me out to read...heh!!  I prefer at least a bit of clarity.  Mist is pretty in the morning but in the cold light of day it burns off and reality stares us in the face.  The Catholic Church deals.  The Orthodox Church ducks or has itself for lunch...om nom nom....

LOL...Now I am starting to sound like you and Isa...

Time for bed.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #29 on: September 03, 2011, 09:34:03 PM »

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

You can keep your flimsy grey fog...you and Ambrose the Grey.


You fear the grey?  The Tradition is often grey but you can beat it back by denying it unless it has achieved official magisterial definition......  limbo, the fate of unbaptized babies.... maybe in hell but your catechism allows you to "hope" it will not be hell.  The teaching of co-redemptrix.... some believe it, some reject it... grey, grey, grey.    Humanae Vitae?  Infallible or the pious opinion of Paul VI..... grey, gery, grey..... Pshaw! 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #30 on: September 03, 2011, 09:40:03 PM »


  The Catholic Church deals.  The Orthodox Church ducks or has itself for lunch...om nom nom....


The Catholic Church deals?!  Huh

The Catholic Church cannot even tell its faithful which of the Pope's statements are ex cathedra and infallible.

The one man who can tell you says nothing but sits on the Hill of Sorcerers and plays games with you all, letting you all guess and letting you all bicker about it.

And as for ducking.... let's not get started on the homosexual and pedophilia sex scandals in your Church and how your Popes and your bishops handled it.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 09:50:15 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #31 on: September 03, 2011, 11:32:59 PM »

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.
There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
the one who stuck the filioque in its creed?

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ and His Apostles derives the Orthodox Truth through Him, mediated through all the Orthodox episcopate in the diptychs of that Catholic Church to all her members.

You can keep your flimsy grey fog...you and Ambrose the Grey.
I have lists of your supreme pontiffs who differ from each other, and lists of their "infallible ex cathedra" statements, which differ from each other. Is that the grey you are talking about?

As for Orthodoxy in black and white:


I've never met two men more proud of not being able to make a declarative sentence except when it comes to some OTHER Church.
"I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." I declare that every day, and I think I can safely assUme that Fr. Ambrose does as well.  And it has nothing to do with any OTHER church, including yours.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 11:33:26 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #32 on: September 03, 2011, 11:54:29 PM »

That's funny, they were fine with St. Peter's authority when he was in Antioch, but when he left them for another city, a more important one, his aegis as Prince of the Apostles suddenly vanished!  Tongue  Huh

Something's funny here. I think the Antiochian supremacists just can't handle the fact that they got dumped.
Antiochian supremacists?  Is that another Vatican invention, for the four patriarchal lines it has there, all tracing themselves to Patriarch St. Meletios, who opened the Second Ecumenical Council when Rome refused to recognize him, or the successor the Council elected, Rome instead insisting on the man who ordained St. Jerome-whose line died out?

St. Peter never had any supremacy, or primacy for that matter, when he was at Antioch.  The Book of Acts makes that clear:if he did, why would they go to Jerusalem, when Galatians and Acts indicate that St. Peter was at Antioch?

Actually it was Rome who couldn't get over being dumped:hence its use of forgeries/false decretals (mentioned above) harkening back to when it was the capital, and not the cluster of huts it became between the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea I and II (none, of course, ever being convened in Rome, despite for instance Pope St. Leo I's attempt to have Chalcedon in Italy).
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 11:55:23 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 04, 2011, 12:00:36 PM »

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

You can keep your flimsy grey fog...you and Ambrose the Grey.


You fear the grey?  The Tradition is often grey but you can beat it back by denying it unless it has achieved official magisterial definition......  limbo, the fate of unbaptized babies.... maybe in hell but your catechism allows you to "hope" it will not be hell.  The teaching of co-redemptrix.... some believe it, some reject it... grey, grey, grey.    Humanae Vitae?  Infallible or the pious opinion of Paul VI..... grey, gery, grey..... Pshaw! 

Indeed!!  Tradition can be exceptionally grey.  And God is "silent" more often than not.  And even with that we were in communion.

But you have rubbed my nose in the grey areas of Catholic teaching and called them out in black and white!!...to demonstrate why we cannot be in communion.

Why the change now?...eh?...Yet you still resist communion.

Baloney
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 12:01:13 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 04, 2011, 04:47:19 PM »

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM

pertinent text:


a) The ordinary, universal Magisterium consists in the unanimous
proclamation of the Bishops in union with the Pope. It is expressed in
the fact that all the Bishops (including the Bishop of Rome, who is
the Head of the College) give a common witness. It is not a question
of extraordinary statements, but of the Church's normal life, of what
is preached in ordinary circumstances as universal teaching in the
everyday life of the Church. "This ordinary Magisterium is thus the
normal form of the Church's infallibility".' As a consequence, it is
not at all necessary that everything pertaining to the faith become
explicit dogma; on the contrary, it is normal for the truth to be
proposed simply by its proclamation in common -which includes non only
words but also facts; the particular and explicit emphasis of a
dogmatic definition is, properly speaking, an extraordinary case,
usually required for very precise and particular reasons.

b) Moreover, when speaking of the need to verify the actual consent of
all the Bishops dispersed throughout the world or even of the whole
Christian people in matters of faith and morals, it should not be
forgotten that this consent cannot be understood only synchronically,
but also diachronically. This means that a morally unanimous consent
embraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is heard
does one remain faithful to the Apostles. "If in some quarter", the
wise Cardinal Ratzinger observes, "a majority were to be formed in
opposition to the faith of the Church in other times, it would not be
a majority at all".2

It is also worth noting that the agreement of the universal Episcopate
in communion with the Successor of Peter about the doctrinal and
binding character of an assertion or an ecclesial practice in ages
past is not annulled or diminished by dissent that may occur in a
later era.

c) Lastly, with particular reference to the teaching about reserving
priestly ordination to men alone, it must be remembered that the
Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis confirmed that this doctrine
has been maintained by the Church's constant, universal tradition and
has been firmly taught by the Magisterium in its most recent documents
(n. 4). Now, everyone knows that Tradition is the hermeneutic locus
where, in various ways "including that of calm conviction"the
Church's self-verifying consciousness operates and is expressed. In
this specific case, the Church has unanimously and consistently
maintained that women cannot validly receive priestly ordination, and
this same unanimity and consistency reveals not the Church's own
decision, but her obedience and dependence on the will of Christ and
the Apostles. Consequently, universal Tradition in this matter, marked
by consistency and unanimity, contains an objective magisterial
teaching that is definitive and unconditionally binding.3 The same
criterion must also be applied to other doctrines regarding universal
moral norms: the killing of an innocent human being is always gravely
immoral; abortion is always gravely immoral; adultery or slander is
always evil, etc. These doctrines, although not yet declared by a
solemn judgement, nevertheless belong to the Church's faith and are
infallibly proposed by the ordinary, universal Magisterium.

In conclusion, in order to speak of the infallible ordinary and
universal Magisterium, it is necessary that the consent between the
Bishops have for its object a teaching proposed as formally revealed
or as certainly true and undoubted, such that it calls for the full
and undeniable assent of the faithful. One can share theology's
insistence on conducting careful analyses in researching the reasons
for this consent or agreement.

Nevertheless, there is no basis for the interpretation that the verification of an infallible teaching of the
ordinary, universal Magisterium would also require a particular formality in the act of declaring the doctrine in question. Otherwise we would be dealing with a solemn definition of the Pope or of an Ecumenical Council.


These clarifications seem necessary today, not for answering subtle
and sophisticated academic questions, but for rejecting a simplistic,
reductionist interpretation of the infallibility of the Magisterium,
while offering at the same time correct theological principles for
interpreting the value of magisterial teachings and the quality of the
doctrines.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #35 on: September 04, 2011, 05:11:06 PM »

not even an imprematur nor nihil obstat. Or does publication in the Vatican's Pravda make it ex cathedra, and "free from error"?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #36 on: September 04, 2011, 07:31:49 PM »

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

You can keep your flimsy grey fog...you and Ambrose the Grey.


You fear the grey?  The Tradition is often grey but you can beat it back by denying it unless it has achieved official magisterial definition......  limbo, the fate of unbaptized babies.... maybe in hell but your catechism allows you to "hope" it will not be hell.  The teaching of co-redemptrix.... some believe it, some reject it... grey, grey, grey.    Humanae Vitae?  Infallible or the pious opinion of Paul VI..... grey, gery, grey..... Pshaw! 

Indeed!!  Tradition can be exceptionally grey.  And God is "silent" more often than not.  And even with that we were in communion.

But you have rubbed my nose in the grey areas of Catholic teaching and called them out in black and white!!...to demonstrate why we cannot be in communion.

Why the change now?...eh?...Yet you still resist communion.

Baloney

To get a solid grasp of why we cannot share communion and what conditions will make communion appropriate, please read Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's "Communion and Intercommunion."   It is only a booklet of maybe 24 pages.   
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,458


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2011, 12:12:56 AM »

Another outburst of the same shenanigans by the same usual players has been moved to Religious Topics.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37983.msg633493.html#msg633493
« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 12:15:45 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2011, 12:25:10 AM »

Ambrose the Grey.

Father, this makes you sound pretty damn awesome, I must say.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2011, 02:52:14 AM »

That is the root and branch of the heresies of the Vatican in their present development, but I'm not even sure it can be claimed to be at the root of those heresies, Pastor Aeternus coming over a millenium too late for that.

There are no heresies possible in my one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

You can keep your flimsy grey fog...you and Ambrose the Grey.


You fear the grey?  The Tradition is often grey but you can beat it back by denying it unless it has achieved official magisterial definition......  limbo, the fate of unbaptized babies.... maybe in hell but your catechism allows you to "hope" it will not be hell.  The teaching of co-redemptrix.... some believe it, some reject it... grey, grey, grey.    Humanae Vitae?  Infallible or the pious opinion of Paul VI..... grey, gery, grey..... Pshaw! 

Indeed!!  Tradition can be exceptionally grey.  And God is "silent" more often than not.  And even with that we were in communion.

But you have rubbed my nose in the grey areas of Catholic teaching and called them out in black and white!!...to demonstrate why we cannot be in communion.

Why the change now?...eh?...Yet you still resist communion.

Baloney
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37983.msg633493.html#msg633493
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2011, 08:13:27 AM »

Ambrose the Grey.

Father, this makes you sound pretty damn awesome, I must say.

Thanks!   laugh
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2011, 11:28:31 AM »

Ambrose the Grey.

Father, this makes you sound pretty damn awesome, I must say.

Thanks!   laugh

 Smiley

In reality you look more like Ambrose the White!!
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2011, 11:32:38 AM »

Ambrose the Grey.

Father, this makes you sound pretty damn awesome, I must say.

Thanks!   laugh

 Smiley

In reality you look more like Ambrose the White!!

In reality I am Ambrose the Brown.  Of my two younger brothers one is bald and one has turned white but for some freaky reason my hair has stayed dark brown.  But the beard has gone white!
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #43 on: September 05, 2011, 11:41:50 AM »

Ambrose the Grey.

Father, this makes you sound pretty damn awesome, I must say.

Thanks!   laugh


 Smiley

In reality you look more like Ambrose the White!!

In reality I am Ambrose the Brown.  Of my two younger brothers one is bald and one has turned white but for some freaky reason my hair has stayed dark brown.  But the beard has gone white!

Ah!...It was the beard I focused on.  You were transporting an icon.  Nice photo.
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #44 on: September 05, 2011, 08:47:26 PM »

Ambrose the Grey.

Father, this makes you sound pretty damn awesome, I must say.
+1  And especially when connected with this comment (though I'm altering the context, but still...):

Quote from: Irish Hermit
You fear the Grey?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 08:55:30 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #45 on: September 06, 2011, 07:26:21 PM »

Ambrose the Grey.

Father, this makes you sound pretty damn awesome, I must say.

Thanks!   laugh


 Smiley

In reality you look more like Ambrose the White!!

In reality I am Ambrose the Brown.  Of my two younger brothers one is bald and one has turned white but for some freaky reason my hair has stayed dark brown.  But the beard has gone white!

Ah!...It was the beard I focused on.  You were transporting an icon.  Nice photo.


Ambrose the Brown and Gray laugh
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #46 on: September 06, 2011, 07:44:50 PM »

Ambrose the Grey.

Father, this makes you sound pretty damn awesome, I must say.

Thanks!   laugh


 Smiley

In reality you look more like Ambrose the White!!

In reality I am Ambrose the Brown.  Of my two younger brothers one is bald and one has turned white but for some freaky reason my hair has stayed dark brown.  But the beard has gone white!

Ah!...It was the beard I focused on.  You were transporting an icon.  Nice photo.


Ambrose the Brown and Gray laugh
Here's Ambrose in Gray, CSA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._P._Hill
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 07:47:12 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #47 on: September 06, 2011, 08:25:08 PM »

Ambrose the Grey.

Father, this makes you sound pretty damn awesome, I must say.

Thanks!   laugh


 Smiley

In reality you look more like Ambrose the White!!

In reality I am Ambrose the Brown.  Of my two younger brothers one is bald and one has turned white but for some freaky reason my hair has stayed dark brown.  But the beard has gone white!

Ah!...It was the beard I focused on.  You were transporting an icon.  Nice photo.


Ambrose the Brown and Gray laugh

That is such a nice photo of you, all surrounded by books and icons.   Very appealing.  Very soothing.
Logged

LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #48 on: September 06, 2011, 08:29:49 PM »

Ambrose the Grey.

Father, this makes you sound pretty damn awesome, I must say.

Thanks!   laugh


 Smiley

In reality you look more like Ambrose the White!!

In reality I am Ambrose the Brown.  Of my two younger brothers one is bald and one has turned white but for some freaky reason my hair has stayed dark brown.  But the beard has gone white!

Ah!...It was the beard I focused on.  You were transporting an icon.  Nice photo.


Ambrose the Brown and Gray laugh

That is such a nice photo of you, all surrounded by books and icons.   Very appealing.  Very soothing.

All that's missing is a cat curled up in his lap.  Smiley
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #49 on: September 06, 2011, 08:34:26 PM »

Ambrose the Grey.

Father, this makes you sound pretty damn awesome, I must say.

Thanks!   laugh


 Smiley

In reality you look more like Ambrose the White!!

In reality I am Ambrose the Brown.  Of my two younger brothers one is bald and one has turned white but for some freaky reason my hair has stayed dark brown.  But the beard has gone white!

Ah!...It was the beard I focused on.  You were transporting an icon.  Nice photo.


Ambrose the Brown and Gray laugh

That is such a nice photo of you, all surrounded by books and icons.   Very appealing.  Very soothing.

All that's missing is a cat curled up in his lap.  Smiley

True.  I don't know if he likes cats but I could probably provide one for every shelf on the book case from my collection.

Nevah!!...I say nevah!...take in strays.   Wink
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 08:35:06 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #50 on: September 06, 2011, 08:40:36 PM »

Quote
True.  I don't know if he likes cats

IIRC he does. And there would be few monks on this earth who don't like 'em.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #51 on: September 06, 2011, 08:53:57 PM »

Quote
True.  I don't know if he likes cats

IIRC he does. And there would be few monks on this earth who don't like 'em.

I have an even dozen at the moment.  Eight of them are related by blood tie and proximity, and form a cohesive pride into which two others have been adopted for better and worse.  There is a brother and sister...my original two who are outsiders and who have to be kept pretty well separated from the rest though when I am there things remain calm.  But when I leave or at night, I have to partition the house.  If I had it to do again...I dunno.  It's a fair commitment and a ton of work!  I have help financially to keep them or I could not do it at all.  I do love them all...They are sweet, but they are NOT aloof...or self-contained.  Not this crew!  Clingers...every one of 'em!   Smiley
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #52 on: September 06, 2011, 09:06:23 PM »

Quote
True.  I don't know if he likes cats

IIRC he does. And there would be few monks on this earth who don't like 'em.

My last two cats died about 3 years ago.  An abby named Sam (our family always had Abyssinians) and a moggy named Ginger.  Sam was a very old 17 and Ginger was 13.  Their ashes now rest in my "cell" in two wooden boxes. Not sure what to do with them.  Miught suggest to my brother that he slip them into my coffin.  laugh
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 06, 2011, 09:38:05 PM »

Quote
True.  I don't know if he likes cats

IIRC he does. And there would be few monks on this earth who don't like 'em.

My last two cats died about 3 years ago.  An abby named Sam (our family always had Abyssinians) and a moggy named Ginger.  Sam was a very old 17 and Ginger was 13.  Their ashes now rest in my "cell" in two wooden boxes. Not sure what to do with them.  Miught suggest to my brother that he slip them into my coffin.  laugh

In order of arrival mine are Sister, Tucker, Harry, Daisy, Rosie, Red Dad, Willow, Lucy, Thumper, Murphy, Tyrone and Eli.  Four males and eight females.  Soup to nuts.  Mostly nuts.

They are young, the last eight, and I sometimes wake up in the middle of the night with a fear that they will out live me...

M.

PS: Madeline M. Mystery, Tygger Big Man, Elizabeth, Buffy, and Molly-Mopsy the Rabbit are all resting out in the yard under-hill...as it were. 

We also have baby skunks, bunnies, racoons, squirrels, chipmonks and ground hogs here in the summer. They run all over the porch leaving fleas and odd smells now and then.

I've got a resident porcupine also but I never see younglings...Just the big and he or she is HUGE.

A dozen or more bird varieties...

What else?....

That's enuff.

I want a goat!!
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 09:48:06 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #54 on: September 06, 2011, 09:51:04 PM »

All cats are their own selves and personalities, and I've had many over the years. But special mention must go to Mistress, a grand old lady who lived to just shy of seventeen. Nothing nuts about this cat - by far the most eloquent in expressing herself, and she had more brains than many people I know. Still sorely missed after several years ....  Cry
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #55 on: September 06, 2011, 10:19:43 PM »

All cats are their own selves and personalities, and I've had many over the years. But special mention must go to Mistress, a grand old lady who lived to just shy of seventeen. Nothing nuts about this cat - by far the most eloquent in expressing herself, and she had more brains than many people I know. Still sorely missed after several years ....  Cry

She sounds like my Madeline M. Mystery [Myssy]...She was lovely, quite self possessed and in charge of her world and ours.  Always dignified...except at 3am when she would run a blue hand-ball around the house like a maniac.  She lived to be 24.  I keep the cats indoors...and the old bunny when the old bunny was still around, so they live a long time.   

Myssy had emerald green eyes.  If you looked at her eyes closely you could see they were  a sort of lemon-green in the background but they had blue chips in them, turquoise blue chips, like mosaic chips scattered loosely in her iris, that made her eyes look emerald green from a distance.  She's the Avatar on my Facebook page...

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #56 on: September 07, 2011, 04:42:54 AM »

Ambrose the Grey.

Father, this makes you sound pretty damn awesome, I must say.

Thanks!   laugh


 Smiley

In reality you look more like Ambrose the White!!

In reality I am Ambrose the Brown.  Of my two younger brothers one is bald and one has turned white but for some freaky reason my hair has stayed dark brown.  But the beard has gone white!

Ah!...It was the beard I focused on.  You were transporting an icon.  Nice photo.


Ambrose the Brown and Gray laugh
Cool pic. Now that's what a priest of Jesus Christ should look like. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,277


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 15, 2014, 01:04:54 PM »

From NCR:

Fr. Charles Curran, arguably the most influential U.S. moral theologian for the last 45 years, will retire from full-time teaching this weekend, but will continue to write and occasionally teach in Dallas, Texas, at Southern Methodist University, where he has been a tenured professor since 1991.
....
Despite strong support from faculty groups, past and current students and the Catholic Theological Society of America, the Vatican’s Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith withdrew Curran’s license to teach Catholic theology in 1986.
....
“To more liberal Catholics, I was a saint, to more conservative Catholics, the devil,” Curran wrote in Loyal Dissent, his 2006 memoir. “The reality seems to me to fall somewhere between the two extremes, but my symbolic role created quite a bit of controversy in those days.”
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Tags: authority dissent 
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.358 seconds with 85 queries.