Guest Eremite Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 [quote]So scripture can be read at many layers (especially the one the apologist wants to to prove). So one can legitimately argue that Revelation or Psalms says Elvis will return in a UFO if the reader wants to find that, is that it?[/quote] For the future, when you initiate discussion, I suggest you take your opponent seriously, and not mock his position at every turn. It makes for better dialogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 12 2005, 09:21 AM'] Hi Apotheoum, "...and so it is the Church's Magisterium alone that authentically interpretes the sacred test." And does this apply to the ruling by the Holy Office that the earth really doesn't move at all, and the sun revolves around the earth? What about the Church's teaching about the moral legitimacy of slavery based on Leviticus 25? Or the Church's condemnation of charging any interest on money loaned? Your assertion is not supported by the facts of history. [. . .][/quote] I find it interesting that you claim to be an expert on the modes of operation of the Church's Magisterium, and yet you are unable to differentiate between the various degrees of authority engaged by the Magisterium in its theological interventions throughout history. Now, the fact that you appear to be totally unfamiliar with the different levels of authority invested in Magisterial documents shows quite clearly that you haven't in fact read much on this topic at all. As far as the questions that you have proposed are concerned, you yourself, as an expert on this topic, should be able to distinguish between the different levels of authority attached to the documents issued by the Magisterium, whether authentic, ordinary, or extraordinary; so please, why don't you answer your own questions in a cogent manner, bearing in mind the Catholic doctrine of the Magisterium, and then I will critique your responses. I still await your responses to the ten questions I posted earlier in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 12, 2005 Author Share Posted March 12, 2005 Hi Apotheoun, Now I see. If the Magisterium was totally in error on its teaching and reverses its postiion, well, then it wasn't a very high level of teaching to begin with. Is that what you are arguing? And I think you are going to have a long wait on answers to those ten questions. But hope springs eternal in the heart of man. (Actually, you might be surprised at some of the answers ) Little Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 12 2005, 11:20 AM'] Hi Apotheoun, Now I see. If the Magisterium was totally in error on its teaching and reverses its postiion, well, then it wasn't a very high level of teaching to begin with. Is that what you are arguing? And I think you are going to have a long wait on answers to those ten questions. But hope springs eternal in the heart of man. (Actually, you might be surprised at some of the answers ) Little Les [/quote] LittleLes, Clearly you do not understand even the basic elements of the Catholic doctrine of the Magisterium. Nevertheless, I await your answers to the ten questions I posted earlier in this thread, because those answers will show the extent of your knowledge about this important theological doctrine. Now, based on your comments in this thread up to this point, it has become clear to me that you are completely ignorant of the three distinctive modes of operation of the Church's Magisterium. That being the case, how can I, or anyone else on this phorum for that matter, be expected to take your comments on the nature of 'ex cathedra' pronouncements seriously, when you have failed to prove that you know how to distinguish between authentic, ordinary, and extraordinary acts of the Magisterium? God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Les, How about giving us reason for the hope that is within you? Surely you can give us the Gospel since it is apparent that you do not think we have it. What denomination are you? My guess, Unitaritan Universalist. Blessings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmjtina Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Mar 10 2005, 09:26 PM'] (1) How long have you been a Catholic, and what qualifies you as a judge in relation to the topic at hand? (2) Where did you study Catholic theology? (3) What qualifications do you have to show that you are an expert on the Catholic doctrine of the Magisterium? (4) Will you please explain the distinctions to be made between the different modes of operation of the Church's Magisterium. (5) How does the diachronic nature of the Magisterium affect the development of doctrine over time? (6) When did the term "ex cathedra" come into use in theological writings? (7) How does the [u]Official Relatio[/u] delivered by Bishop Gasser at the First Vatican Council explain the relationship between the infallibility of the Pope as a public person, and the infallibility of the Church as a collective whole? (8) How does the particular tradition of the Roman Church relate to the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff as a public person in Bishop Gasser's [u]Official Relatio[/u]? (9) How is the supreme authority of the Pope safeguarded in relation to the authority of the college of bishops in the teaching of [u]Lumen Gentium[/u]? (10) What did the Second Vatican Council propose as definitive teaching on the nature of episcopacy? Please answer the following questions at your leisure. God bless, Todd [/quote] I too am curious to the answers as these. Posted again [b][u]for LittleLes[/u][/b], for convienience. pax. Edited March 12, 2005 by jmjtina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Good Luck, I am still waiting for him to discuss my posts. I daresay that I feel a "shotgunning" statemtent coming again. So how about it Les, wanna talk about my posts in a scholarly light now? You know, with quotes and citations and proofs to the counter-theses that I posted? Or is it too much for you? If it is, I can give you the listings again and you can respond one at a time. Oops, sorry, I guess that expecting you to respond to posts that were addressed to you is painting with too broad-a-strokes, therefore constituting shotgunning. How about a nice long conversation....we can even have it in Latin, since you took four years of it and all. Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Quam es vos hodie, Littleles? EGO sum bonus. EGO operor diligo nostrum sermo. Sermo es notitia. Operor vos agnosco quis EGO sum sententia? Utpote vos es a scholasticus of lingua. bona fortuna, Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 (edited) Once I get six and ten answered, I think I'll blow those questions away. (not that they're asking me and not that some nut job catholic who's old and has a ton of official degrees will hang that over your head and not listen to what you say.. hopefully this isn't the intent, hopefully they just want to make you see tht you should be more knowledgeable and/or to see if you're at least close to knowing what you're saying is abiding by the Catholic Church rules or not (not that you always should but.. you have to know when it's appropriate and when not) ) just some stuff for you to have a head start. if you're going to argue with these guys, you have to know their terms, even if you know the concepts. it does make for better communication for one. for two, it helps stop them from thinking that just because they know a few formal words here and there that your points are moot. i find it funny that they respond to you with, "what's your training" instead of rebutting some of your arguments. but anyway.. ordinary vs. extraordinary magistarium [quote] (1) The Extraordinary Magisterium infallibly teaches both de fide credenda (i.e., of the faith to be believed) and de fide tenenda (i.e., of the faith to be held) doctrines through what are called, defining acts. [1] Teachings proclaimed by the Solemn Extraordinary Magisterium are irreformable in themselves. [2] These doctrines can be proclaimed by the Roman Pontiff as the pastor and teacher of all Christians, or by an Ecumenical Council held in communion with and confirmed by the Successor of St. Peter. [3] (2) The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium infallibly teaches both de fide credenda (i.e., of the faith to be believed) and de fide tenenda (i.e., of the faith to be held) doctrines through what are called, non-defining acts. [4] Teachings proclaimed by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium are per se irreformable [5], and it should be noted that this is the common mode of operation of the Church's infallible Magisterium. It is exercised by the Bishops when, even though dispersed throughout the world, but still preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the Roman Pontiff the head of the Episcopal College, they proclaim in their common teaching doctrines to be believed as divinely revealed or to be held definitively. [6] Additionally, the Pope, in the exercise of his Ordinary Magisterium [7], can confirm or reaffirm [8] that a doctrine belongs to the infallible teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium even without recourse to a solemn dogmatic definition. In such cases, "The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff . . . is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church." [9] (3) The Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops when exercising their Authentic Magisterium teach doctrines on matters of faith and morals and issue disciplinary directives with the authority of Christ. The faithful are bound to accept these doctrines and norms, and are to adhere to them faithfully, ensuring that they avoid anything that does not accord with these authoritative teachings and decisions. [10] Although the acts of the Authentic Magisterium do not possess the charism of infallibility, its acts are not devoid of divine assistance [11], and therefore all Christians must give a religious submission of intellect and will to its teachings, even though they are not per se irreformable. [12] The adherence required ". . . cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith." [13] It should be noted that the teaching of the Magisterium is to be understood in a diachronic sense, and thus it is the living Magisterium of all times that one must follow; but of course the diachronic nature of Magisterial teaching does not exclude the possibility that legitimate developments of doctrine can occur during specific periods in the Church's life. A few examples of this can be seen by looking at the legitimate developments of doctrine brought about by the First Council of Nicea (AD 325) on the Trinity, and the dogmatic developments formulated by the Christological councils of the 5th century. Clearly these doctrinal developments occurred at specific moments in history, but they are not to be understood as changes in the faith of the Church, but as the explication of what was already implicitly believed. The same kind of development can be seen in the present Pope's Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis [14], where he has explicitly and formally confirmed that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood and has indicated that this teaching has been infallibly taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as a doctrine de fide tenenda. [15] Similarly, when Pope Paul VI issued the Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae in 1968, he was confirming the constant and irreformable teaching of the Catholic Church as it relates to contraception. [16] In reference to Paul VI's teaching, Pope John Paul II has said that: "By describing the contraceptive act as intrinsically illicit, Paul VI meant to teach that the moral norm is such that it did not admit exceptions. No personal or social circumstances could ever, can now, or will ever, render such an act lawful in itself. The existence of particular norms regarding man's way of acting in the world, which are endowed with a binding force that excludes always and in whatever situation the possibility of exceptions, is a constant teaching of tradition and of the Church's Magisterium which cannot be called into question by the Catholic theologian." [17] So, the Magisterium, like the Church herself, is a living body, a single person stretching through time, and this person is Christ the Teacher. To reject the teaching of the Magisterium, is to reject the teaching of Christ; and it follows that any doctrinal positions based on the private judgments of members of the lay faithful, or even of trained theologians, that in any way contradict the teachings of the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him [18], would not qualify as legitimate developments of doctrine, but would in fact be corruptions of the faith.[/quote] The Magisterium of the Church can only define matters of faith and morals when the topic in question pertains to the depositum fidei, or to those truths which are necessarily connected to revelation, or to the natural moral law. the pope can err in personal beliefs and matters not dealing with faith and morals. he cannot err in teach faith and morals. etc etc Bishop Gasser, quoting St. Robert Bellarmine, stated in his Relatio at the First Vatican Council, "It can be believed probably and piously that the Supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith." [Bishop Vincent Gasser, Official Relatio on the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, delivered at the First Vatican Council 11 July 1870] Edited March 13, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 [quote]just some stuff for you to have a head start.[/quote] Head start? All of what you have posted has already been stated. I suppose that coming from you, Littleles might actually read it. [quote]The Magisterium of the Church can only define matters of faith and morals when the topic in question pertains to the depositum fidei, or to those truths which are necessarily connected to revelation, or to the natural moral law.[/quote] Couldn't have said it better myself....oh wait, I already did and so did others. Littleles, now that a Protestant has stated this, will you start discussing the issues at hand? I mean, you started the threads and all. Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts