homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: The authority of the Catholic Church (Page 6)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: The authority of the Catholic Church
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Chalk.

Oranges.

They´re apostolically canonical.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nenuphar
Shipmate
# 16057

 - Posted      Profile for Nenuphar   Email Nenuphar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is my 5th attempt at getting a reasonably formatted reply: it gives a whole new meaning to "purgatory"!

Triple Tiara said:

quote:
Now, as to infallibility, a Pope needs to make it abundantly clear that he is invoking this specific privilege. This has only been done ONCE. This is how Pope Pius XII made it clear that he was defining dogma and not simply engaging in his ordinary teaching office.
Thank you for that very helpful explanation of the "levels" of papal pronouncement. However, embarrassed as I am to admit my ignorance, I had thought there were 4 relatively recent dogma proclaimed - the Immaculate Conception, the infallibility of the pope, and his universal jurisdiction, as well as the assumption which you mention. Did these not also formally become dogma as well?

I offer my humble apologies if you have already covered this and I missed it.

Posts: 161 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Good post(s) TT.

The Pope saying "I want Cornflakes for breakfast" is made in his own personal capacity and therefore need not detain us here.

Bringing up the "sins" of the Roman Catholic Church, aforesaid "sins" being sins, crimes etc committed by individuals and often admitted as such and dealt with seems to me to be a poor way of going about things.

I found most real questions raised were dealt with well and succinctly long ago. My gut feeling is that the thread is now into its 998th cut.

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What about my question regarding what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about who can give Christian teaching (italics mine):
quote:
III. The Interpretation of the Heritage of Faith

The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church

84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church...

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

This looks like it means theologians, leaders, authors etc. who are not in the Catholic Church shouldn't be trusted to teach on any matters regarding Christianity. ISTM the Catholic Church is saying it alone is capable and authorised to interpret the Bible. If I'm wrong, what does the Catechism really mean here?

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Nenuphar

You are correct about those doctrines being formally declared as dogma. However, the one articulating the doctrinal authority of the Pope (the Infallibility of the Pope) was defined by a Council of Bishops (Vatican I), not by the Pope himself. It in fact came about 20 years after the Pope had defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Therefore, strictly speaking, a Pope has only formally invoked the formally declared infallible authority once - Pius XII in relation to the Assumption.

Just to be clear: both the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception were entirely unremarkable within the Catholic world. They were already held as beliefs, discussed and argued about, but more or less universally held. The Popes merely made a formal definition of them, they weren't introducing them as novel ideas.

SKC - concerning who has the right to teach authoritatively: one of the descriptors sometimes used for Bishops in the RC Church is "Guardians of the Deposit of Faith". They are, as it were, the Supreme Court who would be called upon to judge whether a particular theologian's ideas were in accord with the Faith or not. It does not mean anyone who is not a Bishop cannot read, meditate upon, study, draw conclusions from or teach the Scriptures. Indeed, one of the instruments the Catholic Church has for studying the Scriptures is the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which is made up of Biblical scholars who advise the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Biblical matters. There is even a "Bible University" in Rome, known as the Biblicum, which has a stellar cast of international Professors, including the distinctly Protestant Philip Towner. At the 2008 Synod of Bishops meeting in Rome, convened especially to consider the Bible, one of the people invited to address the Synod was the erstwhile Bishop of Durham, N.T.Wright. And excellent his intervention was too!

What the Catechism is in effect saying about the College of Bishops together with the Pope is that they have the right and the duty to decide on disputed matters. That stops madcap ideas having free rein, and also emphasises the unity in the faith - which is important.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866

 - Posted      Profile for Holy Smoke     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Well, you are presenting a Catch-22 situation, aren't you? How is something going to be shown to be wrong if it is defined infallibly? And how are we going to know it's wrong until we get to heaven? I mean, how do we know the Trinity, the Resurrection, the Ascension are true?

So you're saying that you don't really know whether the Assumption is true or not, despite its having being defined infallibly? [Biased]
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You are correct about those doctrines being formally declared as dogma. However, the one articulating the doctrinal authority of the Pope (the Infallibility of the Pope) was defined by a Council of Bishops (Vatican I), not by the Pope himself. It in fact came about 20 years after the Pope had defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Therefore, strictly speaking, a Pope has only formally invoked the formally declared infallible authority once - Pius XII in relation to the Assumption.

This is, strictly speaking, false. Vatican I could not possibly, and hence did not, give infallibility to the pope by its own power. Vatican I could not possibly, and hence did not, command God to give infallibility to the pope. What the council did was to tell Catholics that believing that God has granted infallibility to the pope (under specific circumstances) is an essential part of the Catholic faith. This it could do, and did do. The change this has brought is hence not that the pope suddenly acquired the new power of infallibility (under specific circumstances). The change this has brought is merely that a faithful Catholic since then cannot in the abstract reject the notion that the pope could ever speak preserved from all error, and in the concrete that the pope is doing so when the specific circumstances mentioned by Vatican I are fulfilled beyond reasonable doubt.

In consequence, we can be reasonably certain that the pope has formally declared dogma ex cathedra prior to Vatican I. In particular, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the way Vatican I set forth the specific circumstances of papal infallibility in 1870 was such as to make the declaration of the Immaculate Conception of 'Ineffabilis Deus' in 1854 an instance of papal ex cathedra definition. Both by the respective wordings of these dogmas themselves (the latter clearly referencing the structure of the former), and by the fact that the very same pope called that council together, it is obvious that Vatican I was basically saying: "Anything like 'Ineffabilis Deus' is an ex cathedra definition..."

It is less clear what other papal definitions must be considered ex cathedra. One thing Vatican I did was indeed to establish the kind of language that would henceforth make such definitions unmistakable. But that one can be more easily mistaken about prior definitions does not make them any less infallible. I think it is highly unreasonable to assume that this declaration of Vatican I points only to two (certainly not one!) papal pronouncements. That indeed would make it seem as if Vatican I created something new, which it could not do. Rather, Vatican I must be understood as a call for Catholics to go through past documents and identify what among them was ex cathedra with reasonable certainty. I would expect that such an effort should yield at least about a dozen cases, purely on a "rare, but not too rare" expectation (Wikipedia points to a list of seven dogmas provided by some theologian, I expect this to be minimalistic). I would also expect that as we go back in history such pronouncements become more frequent, based on the general slowing of the development of the faith with time. However, unfortunately the evidence we have of such pronouncements also becomes less clear as we go back in time. Hence I would not be surprised if several beliefs that Catholics hold "by tradition" now (supposedly as part of the "ordinary magisterium") were not originally decided by a pope in late antiquity ex cathedra (and hence really are of the "extraordinary magisterium").

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Before you rush in to correct me, dear boy, be sure that you have read correctly what I have written. I was very careful to say that Vatican I defined the doctrine, not that it gave the Pope Infallibility.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
SKC - concerning who has the right to teach authoritatively: one of the descriptors sometimes used for Bishops in the RC Church is "Guardians of the Deposit of Faith". They are, as it were, the Supreme Court who would be called upon to judge whether a particular theologian's ideas were in accord with the Faith or not. It does not mean anyone who is not a Bishop cannot read, meditate upon, study, draw conclusions from or teach the Scriptures.

Okay Triple Tiara, thanks; that's helpful for me. I'm still not happy with the idea of Catholic Bishops being the 'Supreme Court' of the Christian faith, but I see a bit better how it works in practice now. [Smile]

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Before you rush in to correct me, dear boy, be sure that you have read correctly what I have written. I was very careful to say that Vatican I defined the doctrine, not that it gave the Pope Infallibility.

I'm by no stretch of imagination your dear boy, and you did say: "Therefore, strictly speaking, a Pope has only formally invoked the formally declared infallible authority once - Pius XII in relation to the Assumption." That is - strictly speaking - false.

Because at least 'Ineffabilis Deus' did formally invoke infallible authority as well, in the manner detailed by Vatican I. That Vatican I came later than 'Ineffabilis Deus' is irrelevant to this point, because Vatican I did not bring about the infallible authority or how it is executed, but merely declared this to all Catholics as a necessary belief.

When parliament establishes a new law, it comes into effect by its authority over the domain. When Newton writes down a new physical law (for the sake of analogy: correctly), then it doesn't come into effect at all. Rather, it has been in effect all the time, and the writings of Newton may now inform us about this law. The declaration of Vatican I is of the latter kind, not of the former.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is not strictly speaking false, it is strictly speaking true - since the formal declaration of the infallibility of the Pope, the privilege has only been formally invoked once.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
It is not strictly speaking false, it is strictly speaking true - since the formal declaration of the infallibility of the Pope, the privilege has only been formally invoked once.

Now you have added a "since". That addition turns your previously false statement into a true one! If you claim to speak strictly, then you cannot complain about being held to strict standards. Furthermore, that added "since" does not change the misleading thrust of your statement to the naive reader. The timing of Vatican I is simply irrelevant to the actual number of ex cathedra dogmas.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let's parse this shall we. I wrote: "Therefore, strictly speaking, a Pope has only formally invoked the formally declared infallible authority once - Pius XII in relation to the Assumption."

Pastor Aeternus, was the formally declared definition of Papal Infallibility, and there has only been one formal invocation of that formally declared authority, Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus.

I don't think any "naive" reader would be misled by that. With or without the use of "since".

This had nothing to do with how many ex-Cathedra dogmas there are but with the manner in which a Pope would indicate that he was invoking the privilege.

Now, if you had chimed in earlier and challenged me on the matter, you would have been correct. Nenuphar got there first, however, and I expanded on my original statement in order to be more precise: there has only been ONE formal invocation of the formally defined dogma.

You took exception to this reply, not to the initial statement.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Don't you think you're being a little pedantic, Ingo?

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Even if he were being pedantic he would be wrong. He has entirely missed the important qualifier in my statement: "formally declared infallible authority".

Had I said "a Pope has only formally invoked the infallible authority once" he might have a leg to stand on.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And how many is that ?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Even if he were being pedantic he would be wrong. He has entirely missed the important qualifier in my statement: "formally declared infallible authority".

Had I said "a Pope has only formally invoked the infallible authority once" he might have a leg to stand on.

Fair enough, but now that the precise intention behind what you said has been clarified, I can't see any reason to continue arguing about it.
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Nenuphar got there first, however, and I expanded on my original statement in order to be more precise: there has only been ONE formal invocation of the formally defined dogma. You took exception to this reply, not to the initial statement.

Indeed. Since this statement is strictly speaking false, unless you mean by it that no papal document prior to Vatican I could contain a textual reference to this Vatican I document, i.e., in 'Munificentissimus Deus' we read
quote:
For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."[8] ...

8. Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor Aeternus, c. 4.

and a cross-reference like that could not have been written prior to 1870, by virtue of this document not existing before then. That is true, but utterly trivial and totally irrelevant.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Don't you think you're being a little pedantic, Ingo?

Not really, though I appreciate that my point is perhaps too technical for most. So let's try an analogy. Let us assume that Wikipedia is the decisive authority on games, and on the 3rd August of 2003 published a document on the game "Simon says". For whatever reason, since then you and some friends are the only people who have played "Simon says", namely once in 2008. Would it then be correct to say, as Triple Tiara does, "Therefore, strictly speaking, gamers have only formally played the formally declared game 'Simon says' once - namely Zach82 and friends in 2008"?

This is correct if, and only if, the Wikipedia article is prescriptive in nature. That is to say, if the game "Simon says" really only exists after Wikipedia has described it in 2003, then your game with friends in 2008 was clearly the only one. However, we all know that Wikipedia articles are descriptive in nature. That is to say, the game "Simon says" existed well before that article was ever written (indeed, all the way back to the Romans as 'Cicero dicit fac hoc'). All that has happened in 2003 is that thanks to the authority of Wikipedia we can now exactly identify what games of the past, present and future should be considered as "Simon says" games.

This is really a key point about Catholic dogma. The power of Councils and popes is descriptive, not prescriptive, in an ultimate sense. Yes, they can set norms, and so that involves some prescriptive power. In our analogy: Wikipedia could have excluded 'Cicero dicit fac hoc' from being a 'Simon says' game, if they had narrowly focused on the appearance of 'Simon'. However, Wikipedia did not "invent" this game, Wikipedia did not make people play such things. Wikipedia can (at least in this analogy) issue normative descriptions, but it cannot make play come into being in this way.

The point is that the power behind all this is God and remains God. A pope can formally invoke papal infallibility before it is formally defined by a Council. Just as people can play "Simon says" before it is formally described by Wikipedia. The only thing that really happened there is that now we know, on authority, what a certain thing is: here an ex cathedra of the successors of St Peter, there the game "Simon says".

I think that is important.

It is also interesting to see just how long I can string Triple Tiara along. [Razz]

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I get the difference, Ingo, and it isn't too technical. The point is that the intention behind the post has been clarified and is now compatible with what you are arguing. The argument right now is about whether TT mistakenly implied something else. Seeing as this ain't a thread about grammar, and TT is on your side, maybe stringing him along is only clouding the issue.

[ 06. August 2012, 17:32: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Stringing me along on what thin fibre, I wonder.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The point is that the intention behind the post has been clarified and is now compatible with what you are arguing.

I'm sorry, but I must have missed that. Where did that clarification happen then?

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think Zach82 is in his element with the minor adjustment cited. [Big Grin]

Is this thread degenerating into fine nuances?

They'd love that at the seminary you're such an ornament to, Zach.

It's good seeing the marks on individual trees. But what about the wood? There was much of real interest in the topic of this thread.

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
He said "I was very careful to say that Vatican I defined the doctrine, not that it gave the Pope Infallibility," Ingo. He is clearly not arguing that the pope suddenly became infallible when the dogma was defined.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
He said "I was very careful to say that Vatican I defined the doctrine, not that it gave the Pope Infallibility," Ingo. He is clearly not arguing that the pope suddenly became infallible when the dogma was defined.

I sort of took for granted from the start that Triple Tiara is not openly heretic concerning the pope. Rather, he was a bit incoherent: what he said about Vatican I did not really fit what he said about the pope. Admittedly, I only have a case because he insisted that his statement was "strictly speaking", and because he has been incapable of admitting since then that - strictly speaking - his statement was false.

Triple Tiara represents the golden mean of Holy Orders personified, hence I've been waiting for him to channel St John Vianney and St Gregory the Great simultaneously in this matter, and humble himself to the core of his being by admitting that he could have expressed himself ever so slightly better... Do I hear the sound of trumpets in the distance?

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not legs.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...Triple Tiara represents the golden mean of Holy Orders personified, hence I've been waiting for him to channel St John Vianney and St Gregory the Great simultaneously in this matter, and humble himself to the core of his being by admitting that he could have expressed himself ever so slightly better... Do I hear the sound of trumpets in the distance?

Are you quite sure you should beatify him now?
[Big Grin]

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh look - IngoB admits he isn't interested in what is right, he simply wants to show that I am wrong.

There, there dear boy. I'm sure even the "naive reader" will appreciate how important that is to you.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Angels.

Truly there are many ecclesiae in the Ecclesia Romana.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."
The next day Jesus gathered the apostles to Him and said, "Sorry chaps, I've just been speaking to my Father and it's bad news. Times are tough. The Holy Spirit's been let go. Instead you"re going to get the Conservative Spirit. He won't lead you into any truth at all, but he"ll stand behind you and make sure you don't backslide on whatever truth you already have."

If you"re going to give one man the power to make policy that is forever binding on the institution then it makes perfect sense to limit that power to proositions which most of the Church already holds to be true.

But this still seems to me pretty much like taking in vain the name of the third person of the Trinity.

Yours by turns mindboggled, understanding and disgusted,

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...

Yours by turns mindboggled, understanding and disgusted,

Russ

Reading the preceding bit of your post it appeared you might need to do a bit of intellectual sifting.

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Oh look - IngoB admits he isn't interested in what is right, he simply wants to show that I am wrong. There, there dear boy. I'm sure even the "naive reader" will appreciate how important that is to you.

In showing that you were (strictly speaking) wrong, I've provided a considerable discussion about how "ex cathedra" decisions should be understood, rightly: here, here and here. Since you have had nothing to say on this substantial - and on-topic - content, I assume that you agree that it was right.

And just to repeat what I've said many times before: I'm on SoF for combative argument, because I like that per se, and because it helps me sort out my faith. I do not consider myself to be particularly good, moral or Christian. The only professional claim I'll make is that I'm a decent natural scientist.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Probably as many as there are angels dancing on the heads of pins.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hehehe poor IngoB.

Nope, there is nothing in which you have shown me to be strictly speaking wrong. You have simply failed to comprehend English, as I explained here . The fact that you keep banging on about how you have proved me wrong is rather comical. I hope the "naive" reader is appreciating the spectacle.

Not really sure what that personal manifesto stuff at the end of your post has to do with anything either.

So, we can continue to play this game of ping-pong, but only till the weekend because I'm off to Australia on Monday.

Your serve.

[ 08. August 2012, 10:45: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You have simply failed to comprehend English, as I explained here.

The popes formally invoked the formally declared infallible authority before it actually was formally declared at Vatican I. Before. Temporally in advance of. There's no temporal paradox, because the Vatican I declaration was descriptive of what has been, is and will be the case not prescriptive of what shall be the case henceforth.

If we read, for example, Benedictus Deus, then we find that it starts with this: "By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following: ..." Thus Pope Benedict XII in 1336 did exactly what he needed to do, according to the formal declaration in Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I in 1870 (see Chapter 4, paragraph 9) to formally invoke infallible authority. It matters not that 534 years passed between the formal invocation and the formal declaration, the formalities were fulfilled.

If you try to argue that a "formal invocation" somehow requires an explicit reference to the Vatican I document, then on one hand such a condition cannot be found in the document itself and on the other hand it then would be more proper to say that a "formal invocation" has never happened. Because Munificentissimus Deus of 1950 does not make explicit reference to 'Pastor Aeternus' in the definition itself (see paragraphs 44 to 48). While being a lot more elaborate, the definition in 1950 by Pope Pius XII is no different to that of Pope Benedict XII in 1336 by the lights of 'Pastor Aeternus'.

Of course, there has been only one invocation since the declaration. That is, strictly speaking, true.

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Not really sure what that personal manifesto stuff at the end of your post has to do with anything either.

If indeed my only goal was to prove you wrong, with no interest concerning the wider truth - as you have claimed - then that would be par for the course on SoF as far as my claims about myself go. Whereas you perhaps have higher standards to live up to... That was my point there.

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
So, we can continue to play this game of ping-pong, but only till the weekend because I'm off to Australia on Monday. Your serve.

It's been more the game of ping. I'm still waiting for any of my serves to be returned.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nope. It's been a game of pong. Which part of "formally declared" are you not getting? The "formally" (i.e. by a competent authority) or the declared (i.e. by a definitive declaration)? The inherent truth of papal authority has never been under discussion from my part.

You keep pinging on a different table which you have set up yourself. You are only going to work yourself up into a lather by keeping on in that fashion. It's bonkers really.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Which part of "formally declared" are you not getting? The "formally" (i.e. by a competent authority) or the declared (i.e. by a definitive declaration)?

I still suspect that it is the "declared" part where we differ. Hence, what do you believe was different after 1870, compared to before 1870, by virtue of this Vatican I declaration? What precisely changed there how?

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Different in what way? Effectively, theologically, actually - nothing whatsoever was different.

What was different was that there was now a formal definitive declaration of what pertained as far as the teaching Office of the Successor of Peter was concerned.

This has just reminded me of an incident when I was on a pilgrimage in the Holy Land with a group of priests. When we visited the Church of the Dormition in Jerusalem, I was persuaded to provoke one of our more theologically precise brethren by asking him "Is this where our Lady is buried?" Quick as a shot he replied "Not since 1950". 10/10 to him for wit and for turning the joke back on me.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This naive reader is appalled actually - at himself of course, that he cannot find what he knows is there. Is here. He cannot see it. But it HAS to be here. I mean, these are two brothers in Christ being an example to me, a mere invicibly ignorant schismatic/heretic. Is this one of those Roman Catholic, i.e. Christian distinctives that ít´s impossible for me to see ? What do I have to do ? Can the Ordinariate help me ? The bible can´t I know. Nor the Holy Spirit. Or a dialectic. Is there a unquestionable tradition that explains all this ?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Don't worry Martin, it's just a game of ping-pong. Or rather, ping and pong. You need not be too engrossed by it.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I still suspect that it is the "declared" part where we differ.

I suspect the "formal", which is a word that is imprecisely used in modern English.

I might make some passing comment about an international sporting event being held in London at the moment. But if I didn't use the word "Olympic" you might truthfully say that I hadn't formally referred to the Olympics (as I hadn't used that particular form of words).

That usage of "formally" is thus equivalent to the "explicitly" with which you contrasted it earlier.

But if the majority view among (professional and amateur) canon lawyers is that there are potentially many papal statements that carry the weight of declared infallibility then that's worth knowing.

Not that such statements are thereby made true; what the declaration makes them is the official adopted position of the institutional Catholic church. To be accepted by faithful Catholics on pain of... ?

...being thought disloyal to Rome ?


Best wishes,

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Different in what way? Effectively, theologically, actually - nothing whatsoever was different.

That's not quite correct. Prior to 1870, I conceivably could have argued in good faith as Catholic that for example 'Benedictus Deus' is not de fide (definita). After 1870, I cannot. That is effectively, theologically and actually different.

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
What was different was that there was now a formal definitive declaration of what pertained as far as the teaching Office of the Successor of Peter was concerned.

And does 'Benedictus Deus' formally invoke what now is formally declared, yes or no? If you say yes, then I rest my case. If you say no, then please explain in what manner precisely it fails to do so.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I mean, these are two brothers in Christ being an example to me, a mere invicibly ignorant schismatic/heretic.

IngoB, bringing the "right" in "righteous" to you since 2004...

I'm already offering my three legs of scripture, tradition and reason to your humping here. If you require a leg of saintliness as well, then try finding a holy quadruped.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's not quite correct. Prior to 1870, I conceivably could have argued in good faith as Catholic that for example 'Benedictus Deus' is not de fide (definita). After 1870, I cannot. That is effectively, theologically and actually different.

Really? So the Pope only became infallible in 1870?

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

And does 'Benedictus Deus' formally invoke what now is formally declared, yes or no? If you say yes, then I rest my case. If you say no, then please explain in what manner precisely it fails to do so.

[Confused] How could it invoke what was formally declared in 1870? Foreseeing the future is not a papal privilege. However, if you are asking me whether it invokes the principle of what is formally declared in 1870 you are asking a different question.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Really? So the Pope only became infallible in 1870?

Nope, and I didn't say that. But prior to 1870 I could have believed in Catholic faith that the pope is not infallible on his own, even if I believed in Catholic faith that councils are. That belief would have turned out to be false, of course, but prior to 1870 I could have made an honest mistake in this matter.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[Confused] How could it invoke what was formally declared in 1870? Foreseeing the future is not a papal privilege.

Exactly as has been done after 1870, namely by fulfilling the formal conditions listed in 1870. This could be done before 1870, and it has been done several times. This could be done after 1870, and it has been done once. Whereas there never has been an invocation in the sense of otherwise explicitly referencing the declaration of 1870. Also the definition in 1950 did not directly quote 'Pastor Aeternus' to identify itself as infallible, or anything like that. (There is a reference in the same text to 'Pastor Aeternus', but prior to the definition and not quoting what actually defines the conditions for an ex cathedra.)

"The Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA ... when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4, p. 9). That's it. That's all there is to it. How does a pope "formally invoke" this? Well, by explicitly saying that he is doing this. He sure does that in Munificentissimus Deus. But he also did that in Benedictus Deus in 1336, as already quoted above: "By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following: ..."

Of course, there is no magic at work here. Vatican I defined as "ex cathedra" what was already understood as defining an "ex cathedra" precisely because the popes had been using this kind of language when they tried to nail down dogma beyond further discussion. So the popes did not predict what Vatican I would declare, Vatican I postdicted what the popes had been doing.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This could be done after 1870, and it has been done once.

Bing bing bing bing BINGO Ingo!

All that other stuff on which you choose to lecture is entirely irrelevant for this is the sole point I made. Which you have now yourself made. Thank you.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
All that other stuff on which you choose to lecture is entirely irrelevant for this is the sole point I made. Which you have now yourself made. Thank you.

Hmm. ... OK then, let's just leave it there.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which one are you Triple Tiara ? And I´m overreacting, of course, to the point of ... tears last night, which is me I know, due to the desert of which I am a part. Can ANYTHING emerge from us ?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the embers of this fire are going out, Martin.

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ashes to ashes Sir P, ashes to ashes.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Can ANYTHING emerge from us ?

What emerges from me most days is a pile of c**p, but that's a normal bodily function...

Sorry,

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
"The Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA ... when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4, p. 9). That's it. That's all there is to it.

Dear IngoB - have I got this right ?

You're saying that the Vatican holds no official list of which papal statements are "ex cathedra" (and thus declared infallible by Vatican 1), but that individuals are left to apply for themselves the definition.

The definition seems to involve at least three conditions:

- that the statement concerns an issue of faith or morals

- that the doctrine is not novel (but rather represents a view or position long held by many in the Church)

- that the Pope intends the doctrine to be believed by all Christians (rather than addressing some particular group).

So that, if (just for the sake of having a clear example) Eliab wishes to become a Catholic but doesn't agree with everything in "Munificentissimus Deus", then he should not do so if he believes that "Munificentissimus Deus" is both ex cathedra and wrong, because such a position has been defined by the Catholic Church to be incompatible with Catholicism.

He may believe that MD is not ex cathedra.

For example his philosophy might be that the Assumption is not a matter of faith.
(Whether Mary died and was buried would seem to be a matter of fact, albeit a fact that may be difficult to ascertain at this remove in time. Given the premise that this did not happen and that she vanished from the earth, then whether she went directly to heaven, indirectly to heaven, or in the opposite direction entirely - that is a matter of faith).

He may believe that no serious philosopher within the church believed in the Assumption until date XXXX, where XXXX is recent enough for this to count as a novelty on a Catholic timescale.

Or he may believe that the Pope was not addressing all Christians (perhaps because he has it on Triple Tiara's say-so that this doctrine was not put forward with the Protestants in mind but was intended to comfort and reassure a particular sort of pious Catholic).

Were he to hold any of those three positions, it would seem logically to follow that he would list MD as "ordinary Magisterium" and thus open to the possibility that in the long term the consensus of the Church might fall the other way.

Or am I barking up completely the wrong tree ?

Or just barking ?

Best wishes,

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools