Author Topic: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility  (Read 421 times)

Anonimus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #20 on: February 06, 2018, 01:26:33 PM »

SF-

Don't look now, but you have very nearly conceded the argument you are objecting to:

Your very correct rationale (i.e., laws which do not intend to bind are no laws at all) is precisely what ABL is implying:

All that would have passed for universal ecclesiastical laws in the past, are not, properly speaking, such today.

So too with many things which once passed for dogmatic facts (e.g., new canonizations).

Consequently, these are not necessarily secondary objects of infallibility today.

But if that is the case, then sedes are being inconsistent or disingenuous (or ignorant, in a non-pejorative sense) when they allege that if we acknowledge the legitimacy of Francis' pontificate, we must likewise acknowledge his acts: Accept the new Mass; new canonizations; new canon law; etc.

No: You have just explained that these are not really any law at all, and consequently, sedes ought not be flinging them at R&R'ers, who are under no compulsion to accept them.

Again, you have jumped to conclusions from what I said.  I have conceded nothing.

What I did say is you are confusing two different arguments.

#1.  Universal eccesiastical laws are not infallible.  This argument is a direct attack on Catholic doctrine and condemnable.

#2.  The Novus Ordo laws are not binding (are not actually laws and never were) due to some legal defect in their promulgation.  Infallibility of laws has no place in this argument given we are not discussing laws.  Nor is there any Catholic doctrine at stack making it a possibility within the confines of Catholic Teaching.  Again I reiterate the word possible as I do not believe this to be the case and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it.

Let's take the New Code of Canon Law.  Please list the reasons and provide the legal evidence why these are not the Church's laws.

SF-

#1: You are directly rebutted by Archbishop Lefebvre in your first contention (i.e., "Universal eccesiastical laws are not infallible.  This argument is a direct attack on Catholic doctrine and condemnable."), who states:

"First, we have seen that, in general, neo-Scholastic textbooks consider as theologically certain the thesis that the universal laws of the Church, including liturgical laws, engage infallibility. Secondly, we then showed that this thesis has, or seems to have, a solid support in Tradition."

Surely you will understand that I prefer to accept an eminent doctor of theology's opinion over yours in this matter.


#2: In this argument, you seem again to be conceding the very point you are objecting to: That infallibility of laws is not engaged because of some defect in the promulgation (which is precisely what Archbishop Lefebvre is implying, as a means of explaining why such "laws" may (and must) be disregarded, and why doing so does no damage to the object of secondary infallibility.

 

Semperfidelis

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2018, 04:38:06 PM »

SF-

#1: You are directly rebutted by Archbishop Lefebvre in your first contention (i.e., "Universal eccesiastical laws are not infallible.  This argument is a direct attack on Catholic doctrine and condemnable."), who states:

"First, we have seen that, in general, neo-Scholastic textbooks consider as theologically certain the thesis that the universal laws of the Church, including liturgical laws, engage infallibility. Secondly, we then showed that this thesis has, or seems to have, a solid support in Tradition."

Surely you will understand that I prefer to accept an eminent doctor of theology's opinion over yours in this matter.


#2: In this argument, you seem again to be conceding the very point you are objecting to: That infallibility of laws is not engaged because of some defect in the promulgation (which is precisely what Archbishop Lefebvre is implying, as a means of explaining why such "laws" may (and must) be disregarded, and why doing so does no damage to the object of secondary infallibility.

#1
From the article:
"So, to identify these, we have the Tradition of the Church, the theologians, the popes in their Encyclicals and in the way they published their decrees concerning these various subjects. So it was concluded, theologians in general concluded, that when the Pope makes a decree for the universal Church and which dealt with the liturgy, with the general discipline of the Church, that the Pope cannot err, that the Pope is infallible."

"As we have seen, the thesis according to which the disciplinary and liturgical decrees promulgated for the universal Church are always guaranteed of infallibility, seems to receive the total support of Tradition."

And anyone who has done any serious reading of the great theologians of the last several centuries, can find a universal agreement on this doctrine that universal ecclesiastical laws are infallible.  Keeping in mind that universal agreement by approved theologians on a point of doctrine is infallible proof of its veracity, it is therefore incumbent upon Archbishop Lefebvre to show that there has been any departure prior Vatican II from this doctrine.  He does cite one authority to this effect nor a coherent argument.  So you are not taking his opinion over mine, but his opinion over that of the consistent teaching of the Church.

But I was discussing the theologians or a non-ex cathedra statement but not the Church maybe objected by some!  Besides the fact that it demonstrates their ignorance on the true authority of approved theologians and Papal teaching, the reverse has also been condemned before by the Church.

Denzinger

Trent
"954 Can. 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema [cf. n.943 ]."

Errors of the Synod of Pistoia*

[Condemned in the Constitution, "Auctorem fidei," Aug. 28, 1794]

"1578 78. The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinuished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,--false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous."

#2
Again you are mixing issues.  It is not an issue of whether these laws are infallible, but whether if these "decrees" are laws in the first place.  If these are merely wishes and not authoritative laws then they have nothing to do with universal ecclesiastical laws in the first place and nothing to do with infallibility.   Stop attacking the Catholic doctrine on the infallibility of universal ecclesiastical laws in your muddled argument. 

If you wish to demonstrate that the New Code of Canon Law is not binding, show where in its promulgation "Pope" John Paul II made it only optional.  Please show how it does not have the force of law.  The burden of proof is upon you.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_25011983_sacrae-disciplinae-leges.html
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
SACRAE DISCIPLINAE LEGES
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
POPE JOHN PAUL II
FOR THE PROMULGATION
OF THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW

 

TO THE REVERED BROTHERS, CARDINALS, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, PRIESTS,
DEACONS, AND TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD,
JOHN PAUL,
BISHOP SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD AS A PERPETUAL RECORD

During the course of the centuries, the Catholic Church has been accustomed to reform and renew the laws of canonical discipline so that, in constant fidelity to her divine Founder, they may be better adapted to the saving mission entrusted to her. Prompted by this same purpose and fulfilling at last the expectations of the whole Catholic world, I order today, January 25, 1983, the promulgation of the revised Code of Canon Law. In so doing, my thoughts go back to the same day of the year 1959, when my Predecessor of happy memory, John XXIII, announced for the first time his decision to reform the existing corpus of canonical legislation which had been promulgate on the feast of Pentecost in the year 1917.
...

Finally, the canonical laws by their very nature must be observed. The greatest care has therefore been taken to ensure that in the lengthy preparation of the Code the wording of the norms should be accurate, and that they should be based on a solid juridical, canonical and theological foundation.

After all these considerations it is to be hoped that the new canonical legislation will prove to be an efficacious means in order that the Church may progress in conformity with the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, and may every day be ever more suited to carry out its office of salvation in this world.

I am pleased to entrust to all with a confident spirit these considerations of mine in the moment in which I promulgate this fundamental body of ecclesiastical laws for the Latin Church.

May God grant that joy and peace with justice and obedience obtain favor for this Code, and that what has been ordered by the Head be observed by the members.

Trusting therefore in the help of divine grace, sustained by the authority of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, with certain knowledge, and in response to the wishes of the bishops of the whole world who have collaborated with me in a collegial spirit; with the supreme authority with which I am vested, by means of this Constitution, to be valid forever in the future, I promulgate the present Code as it has been set in order and revised. I command that for the future it is to have the force of law for the whole Latin Church, and I entrust it to the watchful care of all those concerned, in order that it may be observed.

So that all may more easily be informed and have a thorough knowledge of these norms before they have juridical binding force, I declare and order that they will have the force of law beginning from the first day of Advent of this year, 1983.

And this notwithstanding any contrary ordinances, constitutions, privileges (even worthy of special or individual mention) or customs.

I therefore exhort all the faithful to observe the proposed legislation with a sincere spirit and good will in the hope that there may flower again in the Church a renewed discipline; and that consequently the salvation of souls may be rendered ever easier under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church.

Given at Rome, from the Apostolic Palace, January 25, 1983, the fifth year of our Pontificate
."



Oh, good luck! :headwall: :headwall: :headwall:
 
The following users thanked this post: ubipetrus

Semperfidelis

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2018, 04:51:29 PM »

#1 ABL states the principle being used by both sedes and liberals.

This is not a arbitrary principle but a Catholic doctrine taught by the universal and ordinary magisterium many times in many ways 

Quote
#2 ABL states the conclusion that sedes draw from this principle.

Yes, a conclusion upholding this Catholic doctrine and seeing that this is a the new religion compared to true Catholic doctrine  [/quote]

Quote
#3 ABL states the conclusion that liberals draw from this principle.

Yes, the liberals use this same Catholic doctrine, but they ignore true Catholic doctrine 

Quote
Obviously, #2 and #3 are contradictory conclusions, so at least one of these conclusions must be wrong, and possibly both of them. Therefore..

 False.  While both arguments agree with one premise, they fundamentally disagree with other foundational premises mainly that the new religion is congruent with the Catholic Faith.  Therefore, these are two different arguments not related.

Quote
#4 ABL states his reason for believing that both #2 and #3 are false conclusions: the principle in #1 depends on circumstances which were taken for granted when the principle was defined and used in former times, but because of our unique circumstances ("this liberal and modernist spirit into the higher levels of the Church") this same principle is no longer valid, and hence both sedes and liberals err in their conclusion.

Doctrine does not depend on circumstances.  Were you the Ghost writer for Amoris Laetitia?  Doctrine is true regardless of the circumstances.  The same is true of the doctrine on ex cathedra statements.  Their infallibility is not dependent on whether the pope is white, black, purple or orange.  If they meet the proper criteria, nothing else matters.

Quote
  In other words, the real question is: If a Pope no longer believes in objective truth, is he still able to define objective truth? If he no longer believes in the immutability of truth, can he still bind people to.. to what? To something he does not himself believe is immutable and infallible? Can you anchor (i.e. bind) a boat (i.e. the Church) to jelly fish (i.e. a liberal mind)?

It is not a question of what a pope believes.  For once the action is official completed, the action is not that of the Pope's, but that of the Catholic Church.  His private beliefs are irrelevant.  You cannot separate the two arguing the pope's official action is not an action of the Church.  You cannot argue that the evil or immoral action is that of the pope only as if the Church is immuned from responsibility for it because when a pope issue a law in his public capacity as Head of the Church, it is an act of the Church. 

Quote
If you think this is false reasoning (as you claimed), then please explain why you believe this is false reasoning.


« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 04:58:06 PM by Semperfidelis »
 
The following users thanked this post: ubipetrus

Anonimus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2018, 01:08:48 PM »

SF-

#1: You are directly rebutted by Archbishop Lefebvre in your first contention (i.e., "Universal eccesiastical laws are not infallible.  This argument is a direct attack on Catholic doctrine and condemnable."), who states:

"First, we have seen that, in general, neo-Scholastic textbooks consider as theologically certain the thesis that the universal laws of the Church, including liturgical laws, engage infallibility. Secondly, we then showed that this thesis has, or seems to have, a solid support in Tradition."

Surely you will understand that I prefer to accept an eminent doctor of theology's opinion over yours in this matter.


#2: In this argument, you seem again to be conceding the very point you are objecting to: That infallibility of laws is not engaged because of some defect in the promulgation (which is precisely what Archbishop Lefebvre is implying, as a means of explaining why such "laws" may (and must) be disregarded, and why doing so does no damage to the object of secondary infallibility.

#1
From the article:
"So, to identify these, we have the Tradition of the Church, the theologians, the popes in their Encyclicals and in the way they published their decrees concerning these various subjects. So it was concluded, theologians in general concluded, that when the Pope makes a decree for the universal Church and which dealt with the liturgy, with the general discipline of the Church, that the Pope cannot err, that the Pope is infallible."

"As we have seen, the thesis according to which the disciplinary and liturgical decrees promulgated for the universal Church are always guaranteed of infallibility, seems to receive the total support of Tradition."

And anyone who has done any serious reading of the great theologians of the last several centuries, can find a universal agreement on this doctrine that universal ecclesiastical laws are infallible.  Keeping in mind that universal agreement by approved theologians on a point of doctrine is infallible proof of its veracity, it is therefore incumbent upon Archbishop Lefebvre to show that there has been any departure prior Vatican II from this doctrine.  He does cite one authority to this effect nor a coherent argument.  So you are not taking his opinion over mine, but his opinion over that of the consistent teaching of the Church.

But I was discussing the theologians or a non-ex cathedra statement but not the Church maybe objected by some!  Besides the fact that it demonstrates their ignorance on the true authority of approved theologians and Papal teaching, the reverse has also been condemned before by the Church.

Denzinger

Trent
"954 Can. 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema [cf. n.943 ]."

Errors of the Synod of Pistoia*

[Condemned in the Constitution, "Auctorem fidei," Aug. 28, 1794]

"1578 78. The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinuished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,--false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous."

#2
Again you are mixing issues.  It is not an issue of whether these laws are infallible, but whether if these "decrees" are laws in the first place.  If these are merely wishes and not authoritative laws then they have nothing to do with universal ecclesiastical laws in the first place and nothing to do with infallibility.   Stop attacking the Catholic doctrine on the infallibility of universal ecclesiastical laws in your muddled argument. 

If you wish to demonstrate that the New Code of Canon Law is not binding, show where in its promulgation "Pope" John Paul II made it only optional.  Please show how it does not have the force of law.  The burden of proof is upon you.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_25011983_sacrae-disciplinae-leges.html
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
SACRAE DISCIPLINAE LEGES
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
POPE JOHN PAUL II
FOR THE PROMULGATION
OF THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW

 

TO THE REVERED BROTHERS, CARDINALS, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, PRIESTS,
DEACONS, AND TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD,
JOHN PAUL,
BISHOP SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD AS A PERPETUAL RECORD

During the course of the centuries, the Catholic Church has been accustomed to reform and renew the laws of canonical discipline so that, in constant fidelity to her divine Founder, they may be better adapted to the saving mission entrusted to her. Prompted by this same purpose and fulfilling at last the expectations of the whole Catholic world, I order today, January 25, 1983, the promulgation of the revised Code of Canon Law. In so doing, my thoughts go back to the same day of the year 1959, when my Predecessor of happy memory, John XXIII, announced for the first time his decision to reform the existing corpus of canonical legislation which had been promulgate on the feast of Pentecost in the year 1917.
...

Finally, the canonical laws by their very nature must be observed. The greatest care has therefore been taken to ensure that in the lengthy preparation of the Code the wording of the norms should be accurate, and that they should be based on a solid juridical, canonical and theological foundation.

After all these considerations it is to be hoped that the new canonical legislation will prove to be an efficacious means in order that the Church may progress in conformity with the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, and may every day be ever more suited to carry out its office of salvation in this world.

I am pleased to entrust to all with a confident spirit these considerations of mine in the moment in which I promulgate this fundamental body of ecclesiastical laws for the Latin Church.

May God grant that joy and peace with justice and obedience obtain favor for this Code, and that what has been ordered by the Head be observed by the members.

Trusting therefore in the help of divine grace, sustained by the authority of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, with certain knowledge, and in response to the wishes of the bishops of the whole world who have collaborated with me in a collegial spirit; with the supreme authority with which I am vested, by means of this Constitution, to be valid forever in the future, I promulgate the present Code as it has been set in order and revised. I command that for the future it is to have the force of law for the whole Latin Church, and I entrust it to the watchful care of all those concerned, in order that it may be observed.

So that all may more easily be informed and have a thorough knowledge of these norms before they have juridical binding force, I declare and order that they will have the force of law beginning from the first day of Advent of this year, 1983.

And this notwithstanding any contrary ordinances, constitutions, privileges (even worthy of special or individual mention) or customs.

I therefore exhort all the faithful to observe the proposed legislation with a sincere spirit and good will in the hope that there may flower again in the Church a renewed discipline; and that consequently the salvation of souls may be rendered ever easier under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church.

Given at Rome, from the Apostolic Palace, January 25, 1983, the fifth year of our Pontificate
."



Oh, good luck! :headwall: :headwall: :headwall:

You have missed the Archbishop's entire point, even though you yourself have admitted it elsewhere:

These "universal ecclesiastical laws" are not really any such thing, but only masquerade as such.

Why then do you go to such labor to prove something that contradicts your own conclusion?

An impartial observer might get the impression that, if Archbishop Lefebvre (and you yourself) were correct that these "laws" were not really any such thing, then the sedevacantist thesis loses a good deal of support, insofar as it becomes less compelling if we are not really obliged to obey these pseudo laws (i.e., It removes the sede mantra "If he is Pope, we must obey.").
 

Semperfidelis

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2018, 01:41:30 PM »
This would be true if supported by facts.  While I have agreed this is possible, I have not agreed it has been proven.  You have provided no proof, no facts, ergo you are reaching a conclusion prematurely.  The burden of proof is on you to provide for it is you who are making this claim.

Ok, then prove it.  Show how the 1983 Code of Canon Law was never properly promulgated.  Stop beating around the proverbial bush, and demonstrate it with facts.  It is one thing to just state you conclusion and do a childish dance, and another to prove your case.  I am waiting for the latter.
 

Anonimus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2018, 05:20:42 PM »
This would be true if supported by facts.  While I have agreed this is possible, I have not agreed it has been proven.  You have provided no proof, no facts, ergo you are reaching a conclusion prematurely.  The burden of proof is on you to provide for it is you who are making this claim.

Ok, then prove it.  Show how the 1983 Code of Canon Law was never properly promulgated.  Stop beating around the proverbial bush, and demonstrate it with facts.  It is one thing to just state you conclusion and do a childish dance, and another to prove your case.  I am waiting for the latter.

"Bad laws are not laws
 
If, then, by any one in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society.... But where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God (Leo XIII, Libertas 10, 13)."
http://sspx.org/en/catholic-principles

 

Semperfidelis

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2018, 05:45:48 PM »
And here is your problem.  The Church cannot give you bad laws. 
 

Anonimus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2018, 10:55:39 PM »
And here is your problem.  The Church cannot give you bad laws.

And She does not, because they are no laws at all.
 

Semperfidelis

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #28 on: February 10, 2018, 06:27:36 AM »
And here is your problem.  The Church cannot give you bad laws.

And She does not, because they are no laws at all.

Your basis for whether or not these are laws has to be based on something other than if they are bad.  Bad laws are still laws, as far as legally decreed, even if they are trumped by God's law and  not to be followed. 

The Church does not, cannot offer poison to her flock.
 
The following users thanked this post: ubipetrus

Semperfidelis

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2018, 06:50:34 AM »
Let me put it another way to help you see how using such criteria destroys the nature of infallibility.

Your argument is the same as someone who would claim ex Cathedra statements are infallible, but if there is an error in one, well then that makes it not one.  Can't you see that placing the validity of an act on its infallibility destroys the very notion of infallibility and a Catholic's certainty in anything from anytime.  Either something is infallible and can never error, or it is not reliable.  If the Church can issue error, the Protestants are right and we are left with nothing for certain.