TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

[ReasonableFaith]

On 8/6/2021 at 1:00 PM, fides' Jack said:

Still, it's clear he's an anti-pope.

Anti-Pope in the sense Benedict XVI is still the Pope,  someone other than Benedict XVI or Francis is the Pope, or there is no current Pope?

[KnightofChrist]

13 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

Anti-Pope in the sense Benedict XVI is still the Pope,  someone other than Benedict XVI or Francis is the Pope, or there is no current Pope?

In context I read it as Pope Francis is the Pope but not at all a good one, one that acts counter to how a Pope should.

[SicutColumba]

7 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

context I read it as Pope Francis is the Pope but not at all a good one, one that acts counter to how a Pope should.

But antipope is a pretty loaded term. Across Church history it means someone who claims themself to be pope and has a significant influence. It doesn’t mean a bad pope or even a horrible one, and people who use this word know this. 

So not the pope

Edited August 9, 2021 by SicutColumba
I forgot a word

[KnightofChrist]

On the question of how far obedience to the Pope goes when he rejects tradition I'm reminded of the book "Catholics" by Brian Moore

Which is in many ways similar to the crisis in the Church since Vatican II.

Description from Amazon

"In Rome, surrendering to secular pressures, the Fourth Vatican Council is stirring a revolution with their official denial of the church’s core doctrines. They’ve abolished clerical dress and private confession; the Eucharist is recognized only as an outdated symbol; and they’re merging with the tenets of Buddhism. They’re also unsettled by the blind faith of devout pilgrims from around the world congregating on a remote island monastery in Ireland—the last spot on earth where Catholic traditions are defiantly alive. At the behest of the Vatican, Father James Kinsella has been dispatched to Muck Abbey with an ultimatum: Adhere to the new church or suffer the consequences.
 
But in Abbot Tomás O’Malley, Kinsella finds less an adversary than a man of bewildering contradictions—unyieldingly bound to his vows, yet long-questioning his devotion to God. Now, between Kinsella and O’Malley comes an unexpected challenge that will reveal their truths, their purpose, their faith, and their doubt.
 
“Told with . . . superb grace and wit,” Catholics was adapted by Brian Moore for the 1973 film starring Martin Sheen and Trevor Howard ( The New Yorker)."

 

Spoiler in the end from what I recall of the book and the movie the 'radtrads' submit to authority the one and only part of tradition still held.  

 

3 minutes ago, SicutColumba said:

But antipope is a pretty loaded term. Across Church history it means someone who claims themself to be pope and has a significant influence. It doesn’t mean a bad pope or even a horrible one, and people who use this word know this. 

So not the pope

Agreed, not a term I would have used.  Pope Francis' actions for example his repetitive defence of child abusers make him a bad even wicked Pope, but not an Antipope. 

[fides' Jack]

On 8/8/2021 at 7:43 PM, ReasonableFaith said:

Anti-Pope in the sense Benedict XVI is still the Pope,  someone other than Benedict XVI or Francis is the Pope, or there is no current Pope?

 

23 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Agreed, not a term I would have used.  Pope Francis' actions for example his repetitive defence of child abusers make him a bad even wicked Pope, but not an Antipope. 

That's fine.  I can admit I used the term incorrectly.  I was ignorant of the actual meaning.

No, I don't claim that Pope Francis is not the legitimate pope.  As I stated, I submit to his authority, in all of those instances where he does not abuse that authority.  For instance, if he tells me I have to wear a face mask or get a vaccine, in acting according to my conscience, I have to disobey.

An antichrist, then.

[fides' Jack]

 

On 8/8/2021 at 7:04 AM, Peace said:

Yes, conscience plays a role, but I think you are abusing it to essentially replace the pope's judgment with your own judgment , with respect to literally every issue. You seemingly will not give assent to any issue, unless it already conforms to your own own understanding of what the Church "really" teaches.

Literally every issue?  

You yourself said that it's a serious charge you've levied against me, so let's not exaggerate it, then.

On 8/8/2021 at 7:04 AM, Peace said:

Because you and others have come on this forum and moaned and complained about him being wrong on this issue or that issue, but when others such as myself have challenged your assertion, you have been utterly incapable of objectively demonstrating that what PF said contradicts the teaching of the church.

I can't speak for others.  I have defended my position, but I admit I am incapable of defending it in a way that is persuasive to you.

On 8/8/2021 at 7:04 AM, Peace said:

Almost all of your objections have fallen into gray areas, we are not talking about murdering infants. It's like the Holy Spirit prompted you to conclude that the footnote in Amoris was heresy.

Almost all?  Can you give me one objection that was a black and white issue?  Can you give me an example of 3 or 4 that fell into gray areas?  

Honestly, in my mind, there are very, very few gray areas.  The Church's teaching is consistently black and white.  Very little gray.  It is the devil who tries to make everything gray and confusing in order to lead people astray.

Can you find a quote from me saying that the footnote in Amoris Laetitia was heresy?  Or are you lumping me in with one of "those people"?

On 8/8/2021 at 7:04 AM, Peace said:

You've basically publicly accused Pope Francis of being a heretic. Again, not a good look, especially for a layperson. 

There were a couple different directions I thought about going, in order to answer this.  To be honest, I don't know for sure that he is a formal heretic, but certainly he has advocated for heretical ideas.

If I were concerned just with looks, I wouldn't even go that far.  But truth needs to be proclaimed.

On 8/8/2021 at 7:04 AM, Peace said:

Let a bishop do that, if it needs to be done.

Bishops have done it.  Bishops are doing it.  

 

The fact of the matter is that the truth, especially right now, needs to be proclaimed, at all costs, by all faithful people.

I recommend you read the LifeSiteNews article on Blessed Franz Jägerstätter, that I just posted in a new topic: 

He was made a blessed because he had the courage and the fortitude to defend truth, even to the point of losing his life, and specifically against the Nazis AND his bishop and his pastor, when everyone around was accusing him of basically the same thing you're accusing me of now.

If you think I'm making a mistake comparing his situation to my own, know that I was not the first to do so.  It's a good article.

On 8/7/2021 at 10:53 PM, Mercedes said:

Catholics have expressed this attitude towards papal authority over the last 60 or 70 years.  They are called 'cafeteria' Catholics who simply pick and choose what they will submit too according to their own desires.

Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Mt 5:10

Edited August 10, 2021 by fides' Jack
grammar

[Peace]

7 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

 

Literally every issue?  

You yourself said that it's a serious charge you've levied against me, so let's not exaggerate it, then.

Yeah dude. Literally every issue. You admit it yourself below by asserting that the Church's teaching is consistently "black and white".

Since all of the teachings are "black and white" what need is there for you to submit to the authority of Pope Francis. The issues are easy. You know just as well as he does, no?

7 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Almost all?  Can you give me one objection that was a black and white issue?  Can you give me an example of 3 or 4 that fell into gray areas? 

Dude I don't remember the specific points. It's not like I am going to go back and search through threads.

7 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Honestly, in my mind, there are very, very few gray areas.  The Church's teaching is consistently black and white.  Very little gray.  It is the devil who tries to make everything gray and confusing in order to lead people astray.

Exactly. You think that there are very few gray areas if any and everything is black and white. If everything is black and white to you, why would you have any need to listen to Pope Francis? If he agrees with your "black and white" determination then he is correct. If he disagrees with your "black and white" determination then he is incorrect.

7 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Can you find a quote from me saying that the footnote in Amoris Laetitia was heresy?  Or are you lumping me in with one of "those people"?

 I don't remember what your stance was with respect to that issue specifically. Why don't you just stop beating around the bush and tell us what it was if you have a point to make? It ain't like I'm gonna spend the next hour searching through your old posts.

7 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

There were a couple different directions I thought about going, in order to answer this.  To be honest, I don't know for sure that he is a formal heretic, but certainly he has advocated for heretical ideas.

If I were concerned just with looks, I wouldn't even go that far.  But truth needs to be proclaimed.

Bishops have done it.  Bishops are doing it.  

 

The fact of the matter is that the truth, especially right now, needs to be proclaimed, at all costs, by all faithful people.

I recommend you read the LifeSiteNews article on Blessed Franz Jägerstätter, that I just posted in a new topic: 

He was made a blessed because he had the courage and the fortitude to defend truth, even to the point of losing his life, and specifically against the Nazis AND his bishop and his pastor, when everyone around was accusing him of basically the same thing you're accusing me of now.

If you think I'm making a mistake comparing his situation to my own, know that I was not the first to do so.  It's a good article.

Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Mt 5:10

Who knows. Maybe you'll be proven right one day. I highly doubt it, but we shall see.

[ReasonableFaith]

40 minutes ago, Peace said:

If he agrees with your "black and white" determination then he is correct. If he disagrees with your "black and white" determination then he is incorrect.

It seems more severe than being ‘incorrect.’  When Francis disagrees with the poster’s ‘black and white’ determinations the Pope becomes:

 

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

An antichrist, then.

As modified from the earlier descriptor  of Francis as an ‘anti-Pope,’ a concept taught in these parts to public school 11th graders by the so called ‘leftist owned educational system.’  

[fides' Jack]

On 8/10/2021 at 5:08 PM, Peace said:

You know just as well as he does, no?

On every issue?  No.

 

On 8/10/2021 at 5:08 PM, Peace said:

If everything is black and white to you, why would you have any need to listen to Pope Francis? If he agrees with your "black and white" determination then he is correct. If he disagrees with your "black and white" determination then he is incorrect.

Not mine, the Church's, as taught across millennia.

And I didn't say everything is black and white.  It is generally so, with the Church.

On 8/10/2021 at 5:08 PM, Peace said:

I don't remember what your stance was with respect to that issue specifically. Why don't you just stop beating around the bush and tell us what it was if you have a point to make? It ain't like I'm gonna spend the next hour searching through your old posts.

To be honest, at that point I wasn't posting here, much.

My point is that you're over-generalizing with regards to my positions and my stances, which is why I was asking for specific evidence to back your claims, such as "literally every issue", etc...

I like you, Peace, but you seem to attack the person more so than the argument.  At least in my case...  I have seen some good arguments from you with other posters.  And you've proven me wrong a couple times, as well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely guilty of this, too - especially over the last couple years with regards to leftism. 

A couple of my favorite lines, from one of my favorite shows: 

Quote

Why are those like yourself [...] not dissuaded by all the evidence to the contrary?

Because all the evidence to the contrary is not entirely dissuasive.

Precisely.

 

On 8/10/2021 at 5:59 PM, ReasonableFaith said:

As modified from the earlier descriptor  of Francis as an ‘anti-Pope,’ a concept taught in these parts to public school 11th graders by the so called ‘leftist owned educational system.’  

I admit it: I'm stupid.

To further prove this point, I'll tell you something about me - I was homeschooled in 11th grade.  Take that however you want to.

On 8/10/2021 at 5:08 PM, Peace said:

If everything is black and white to you, why would you have any need to listen to Pope Francis? If he agrees with your "black and white" determination then he is correct. If he disagrees with your "black and white" determination then he is incorrect.

Just reading this again...  I don't know for sure what it is you're trying to say here.

But it's more the pope's job to defend the Church than it is my job to defend the pope.

[Peace]

4 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Not mine, the Church's, as taught across millennia.

Doesn't matter. The living magisterium is the only authentic interpreter of Sacred Tradition. You don't have the authority to go back and say "the Church has always taught this" or "the Church has always taught that." That is simply your opinion. If your opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from your superiors, then you are to assent to their teaching.

Otherwise you are functionally no different than a Protestant with a history book.

4 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I like you, Peace, but you seem to attack the person more so than the argument.

I attack both in equal measures, with no shame whatsoever. I am resigned to purgatory.

Whatever is necessary to secure the victory my friend. Peace goes low when others go high. You all know this. It amuses me when people complain about it actually.

Or as Al Davis said: Just win baby.

[MIKolbe]

11 hours ago, Peace said:

Otherwise you are functionally no different than a Protestant with a history book.

 

respeck

[fides' Jack]

16 hours ago, Peace said:

Doesn't matter. The living magisterium is the only authentic interpreter of Sacred Tradition. You don't have the authority to go back and say "the Church has always taught this" or "the Church has always taught that." That is simply your opinion. If your opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from your superiors, then you are to assent to their teaching.

This is absolutely false.

Any Catholic who knows the Church's unchanging teaching on faith or morals is called to defend that teaching, especially when it is challenged by the "wolves" present in the Church.

There are absolutely cases when the laity are called to learn the teaching of the Church on their own, and there are cases when they are called to recognize heresy even among the authority of the Church.

And my case is easily provable.  There are bishops today who have publicly said that the Eucharist is merely a symbol, who do not believe in the True Presence.  Are you not called to correct them?  Are you going to remain silent in the face of such as insult to God?  Aren't you afraid of meeting your Judge, only to hear Him ask you, "Why didn't you defend Me?"

Also, St. Paul corrected Peter, the first pope.  That should be example enough for you to abandon your incorrect view.

16 hours ago, Peace said:

I attack both in equal measures, with no shame whatsoever. I am resigned to purgatory.

That's sad.  I'll pray for us both.

16 hours ago, Peace said:

Otherwise you are functionally no different than a Protestant with a history book.

Wrong again, there's a difference between heresy and schism, and my position is neither.

[Mercedes]

31 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

And my case is easily provable.  There are bishops today who have publicly said that the Eucharist is merely a symbol, who do not believe in the True Presence.  Are you not called to correct them?  Are you going to remain silent in the face of such as insult to God?  Aren't you afraid of meeting your Judge, only to hear Him ask you, "Why didn't you defend Me?"

 

Who are these bishops?  I've never heard this claim before.  Can you cite examples or name them?

[KnightofChrist]

19 hours ago, Peace said:

Doesn't matter. The living magisterium is the only authentic interpreter of Sacred Tradition. You don't have the authority to go back and say "the Church has always taught this" or "the Church has always taught that." That is simply your opinion. If your opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from your superiors, then you are to assent to their teaching.

What happens then when a vast majority of the 'living magisterium' teaches and believes heresy and the Pope goes along with it under pressure and/or a desire to get along with the secular powers?

[fides' Jack]

2 hours ago, Mercedes said:

Who are these bishops?  I've never heard this claim before.  Can you cite examples or name them?

No.  That would violate the 8th Commandment.

The point is that if the "road to hell is paved with the skulls of priests, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path", one would be careful not to follow bishops and priests who clearly don't align with Church teaching.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

What happens then when a vast majority of the 'living magisterium' teaches and believes heresy and the Pope goes along with it under pressure and/or a desire to get along with the secular powers?

The few bishops who hold the truth continue to respectfully make their objections known, and then the heresy is corrected and the true doctrine is dogmatically defined by a council or infallibly declared by a subsequent Pope at a later time, because the Church cannot err.

[KnightofChrist]

20 minutes ago, Peace said:

The few bishops who hold the truth continue to respectfully make their objections known, and then the heresy is corrected and the true doctrine is dogmatically defined by a council or infallibly declared by a subsequent Pope at a later time, because the Church cannot err.

The question as asked was about during the heresy, not afterwards, in relation to your quoted statements.

Does it matter if the 'living magisterium' teaches heresy? Do the laity have the right to object and go back and say "the Church has taught this" or "the Church has always taught that"? Would that simply be an opinion? If that opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from the 'living magisterium', then are the laity to assent to their teaching?

Edited August 13, 2021 by KnightofChrist

[Peace]

4 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

This is absolutely false.

What do you mean its false? It's written right here:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

4 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Any Catholic who knows the Church's unchanging teaching on faith or morals is called to defend that teaching, especially when it is challenged by the "wolves" present in the Church.

There are absolutely cases when the laity are called to learn the teaching of the Church on their own, and there are cases when they are called to recognize heresy even among the authority of the Church.

How are you any different than a Protestant with a history book then?

Sure, you have a right to make your objections and concerns known, to bring those concerns to your superiors, after your conscience cannot allow you to to otherwise once you have attempted in good faith to understand and give assent to the teaching that you cannot agree with.

4 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

And my case is easily provable.  There are bishops today who have publicly said that the Eucharist is merely a symbol, who do not believe in the True Presence.  Are you not called to correct them?  Are you going to remain silent in the face of such as insult to God?  Aren't you afraid of meeting your Judge, only to hear Him ask you, "Why didn't you defend Me?"

Also, St. Paul corrected Peter, the first pope.  That should be example enough for you to abandon your incorrect view.

First of all, St. Paul is an Apostle. You are neither an apostle, a bishop, or a priest, the last time I checked. So the St. Paul argument does not work. St. Paul correcting St. Peter is not a carte-blanch for every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the street to start "correcting" the Pope on an internet-forum.

Secondly, yes, yes, I am sure there are plenty of Catholic bishops walking around today who deny the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. There are also plenty of Catholic bishops who advocate for the rape and murder of infants, and that married men and women should marry their dog to form a 3-way polygamous marriage.

Look, you can create these extreme fantasy-world cases that would clearly offend the conscience of any faithful Catholic, but that things like that barely ever happen and that is not really the situation we are dealing with. We are dealing with complex, gray-areas like the infamous footnote in Amoris or what have you.

Although I do not know, I suspect that it is not your conscience that is at play here. I suspect that it is your pride, in thinking that you know the faith better than the Pope and the majority of bishops, and that you cannot comprehend that your understanding of the faith, Scripture or Tradition, could be incorrect.

But that is speculation of course. I do not know.

4 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Otherwise you are functionally no different than a Protestant with a history book.

Wrong how? Protestants believe that each individual has the ultimate authority to decide for himself what Scripture and Tradition teaches, and that they have no obligation to give religious assent to a superior.

I don't see how you are functionally any different in the way in which you approach church authority.

[Peace]

35 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

The question as asked was about during the heresy, not afterwards, in relation to your quoted statements.

Does it matter if the 'living magisterium' teaches heresy? Do the laity have the right to object and go back and say "the Church has taught this" or "the Church has always taught that"? Would that simply be an opinion? If that opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from the 'living magisterium', then are the laity to assent to their teaching?

Well for one, if we are talking about heresy, the Church's living Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. Holy Orders is a sacrament with special graces proper to that sacrament. The Holy Sprit does not guide every Tom, Dick and Harry layperson into a proper interpretation of Sacred Scripture and Tradition.  And every priest and especially bishops has 10 or 20 times the level of proper theological study than that of the average layperson. This is why the Church's Living Magisterium gets it right 99.9999% of the time while these various layperson objectors that you seem to esteem get it wrong 99.9999% of the time. Most of the heresy to which you object comes from the laity. It is the Church's Living Magisterium that has upheld the truth. Laypeople who want to correct the bishops try to paint the picture to be the opposite, naturally. They see themselves as the "true defenders of the authentic faith" or what have you, but for the most part they are just wrong and too prideful to admit that their superiors are more adept than they are to handle complex theological issues.

I mean, you guys always bring up the one or two times in the 2000 history of the Church where the Pope taught heresy, and act like it's an every day occurrence. It literally happens like once every 1000 years.

Secondly, the Church's Living Magisterium cannot dogmatically teach heresy. Again, the Church cannot err. You can have individual bishops at individual points in time that err, but the Church cannot dogmatically bind any Christian to believe heresy. God prevents the Pope and the bishops from dogmatically binding error, which is why no dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church has ever been proven to be in error. So your hypothetical is impossible in a strict sense.

Now, if we are talking about "teach" in a loose sense about particular issues that have not been dogmatically defined and in which the teaching appears to be incorrect doctrine that disagrees with your understanding of Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, the topic is discussed in the document below, albeit with respect to lay-theologians. You do, of course, have a right to object and to make your objections known if the teaching is something that your conscience cannot allow you accept, if carried out in the proper manner discussed below.

Part of it is posted below, but the following section titled "Dissent" is also relevant.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

13. "God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations"(8) He bestowed upon His Church, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, a participation in His own infallibility.(9) Thanks to the "supernatural sense of Faith", the People of God enjoys this privilege under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, which is the sole authentic interpreter of the Word of God, written or handed down, by virtue of the authority which it exercises in the name of Christ.(10)

14. As successors of the apostles, the bishops of the Church "receive from the Lord, to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth, the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain to salvation...".(11) They have been entrusted then with the task of preserving, explaining, and spreading the Word of God of which they are servants.(12)

. . .

25. Even when collaboration takes place under the best conditions, the possibility cannot be excluded that tensions may arise between the theologian and the Magisterium. The meaning attributed to such tensions and the spirit with which they are faced are not matters of indifference. If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill their respective roles while practicing dialogue.

26. In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.

27. Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.

28. The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.

Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

29. In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.

30. If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth.

31. It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.

For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

@PeaceHow do you square that answer, your statements to @fides' Jack that prompted my question, with the Arian heresy? Which was taught by 2/3 of the bishops and even in part the Pope. 

Edited August 14, 2021 by KnightofChrist