Page 36 of 36 FirstFirst ... 26343536
Results 351 to 355 of 355

Thread: Catholic Problems

  1. #351
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    When "ut doctor privatus" IS "supreme judge of the Church", not so much.
    Not so.

    Main rule : if a bishop just says "let's not bother", he is speaking "ut doctor privatus".
    If a bishop says : this and that and sundry is condemned, he is speaking as supreme judge of his see, and in the case of the Pope of the Church universal.

    So, if your bishop (not meaning I consider him as legitimately possessing a see ... but ...) tells you that "Church Fathers are not infallible individually" WHEN someone quotes a very typical Patristic position (Young and Still Earth, not past 8000 years, not moving in space), since he is saying "you don't need to bother", he might be speaking as of his private opinion in theoloogy rather than exercising his episcopal jurisdiction (if any).
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  2. #352
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,702
    Amen (Given)
    4017
    Amen (Received)
    6783
    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    Not so.

    Main rule : if a bishop just says "let's not bother", he is speaking "ut doctor privatus".
    If a bishop says : this and that and sundry is condemned, he is speaking as supreme judge of his see, and in the case of the Pope of the Church universal.

    So, if your bishop (not meaning I consider him as legitimately possessing a see ... but ...) tells you that "Church Fathers are not infallible individually" WHEN someone quotes a very typical Patristic position (Young and Still Earth, not past 8000 years, not moving in space), since he is saying "you don't need to bother", he might be speaking as of his private opinion in theoloogy rather than exercising his episcopal jurisdiction (if any).
    Your "main rule" is nonsense. It would help if you didn't base it on a far-fetched post hoc interpretation of the writings of Pope Honorius.

    And bishops don't unilaterally condemn something either; that's what councils are for.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  3. #353
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    And bishops don't unilaterally condemn something either; that's what councils are for.
    Bishops do issue condemnations, like bishop Alexander (while Athanasius was as yet a deacon or presbyter) condemned not just presbyter Arius, but also his theses, before the convocation of Nicea I.

    Both bishops and local councils issue condemnations which are not necessarily confirmed by ecumenical ones, but as long as not invalidated by a such, or by a Pope, remain binding on area and may be authoritative outside it.

    Examples, bishop Tempier condemned on laetare Sunday of early 1277 / "late 1276" as they would have said, a number of authors and at least one book whose author was free to write other ones (Andrew the Chaplain was not necessarily a bad theologian because his love lore was bad for morals), and also 219 theses.

    48 years later Stephen III of Paris revoked, not the condemnations of Stephen II, but any irregularity or condemnation which the theses of St Thomas possibly could have incurred due to it.

    Or the Councils of Toledo, of which the FIRST (finished in 400 AD) had filioque in an authoritative creed (not the Nicene one!) after which certain condemnations were added.

    It is possible that in Spain the "uncreated energies" of Palamas would be falling under those condemnations of the bishops assembled in Toledo.

    So, yes, ecumenical councils are NOT the only occasions when bishops decide with authority binding on their own subjects, what these are not allowed to believe.

    Sorry. Hard to have to break it to a ecclesiological historical ... shall we say fluff bunny? ... such as Eastern Orthodox often are.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  4. #354
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,702
    Amen (Given)
    4017
    Amen (Received)
    6783
    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    Bishops do issue condemnations, like bishop Alexander (while Athanasius was as yet a deacon or presbyter) condemned not just presbyter Arius, but also his theses, before the convocation of Nicea I.
    That was in a local council. Derp.
    Both bishops and local councils issue condemnations which are not necessarily confirmed by ecumenical ones, but as long as not invalidated by a such, or by a Pope, remain binding on area and may be authoritative outside it.

    Examples, bishop Tempier condemned on laetare Sunday of early 1277 / "late 1276" as they would have said, a number of authors and at least one book whose author was free to write other ones (Andrew the Chaplain was not necessarily a bad theologian because his love lore was bad for morals), and also 219 theses.

    48 years later Stephen III of Paris revoked, not the condemnations of Stephen II, but any irregularity or condemnation which the theses of St Thomas possibly could have incurred due to it.

    Or the Councils of Toledo, of which the FIRST (finished in 400 AD) had filioque in an authoritative creed (not the Nicene one!) after which certain condemnations were added.

    It is possible that in Spain the "uncreated energies" of Palamas would be falling under those condemnations of the bishops assembled in Toledo.

    So, yes, ecumenical councils are NOT the only occasions when bishops decide with authority binding on their own subjects, what these are not allowed to believe.
    I see you're hedging your bets here a bit. I didn't say that decisions were limited to ecumenical councils. Late actions by schismatic bishops are irrelevant.
    Sorry. Hard to have to break it to a ecclesiological historical ... shall we say fluff bunny? ... such as Eastern Orthodox often are.
    Ell Oh Ell.

    Have fun bouncing around in your own little world; you're far too sloppy in your arguments to be taken seriously.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  5. #355
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    I see you're hedging your bets here a bit. I didn't say that decisions were limited to ecumenical councils. Late actions by schismatic bishops are irrelevant.
    If you admit that Toledo I (finished 400 AD) was a legitimate local council, you must admit filioque is legitimate theology unless condemned by an ecumenical council, and if so, where is your ground for calling Stephen II Tempier or Stephen III "schismatics"?
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •