Originally posted by robrecht
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Comparative Religions 101 Guidelines
Welcome to Comp Religions, this is where the sights and sounds of the many world religions come together in a big World's Fair type atmosphere, without those delicious funnel cakes.
World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.
This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.
And as usual, the forum rules apply.
Forum Rules: Here
World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.
This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.
And as usual, the forum rules apply.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Catholic Problems
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostIf a pope can profess heretical dogmas privately, why could he not profess them publicly?http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostThere is a distinction between "ut doctor privatus" and "as supreme judge of the Church".Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostWhen "ut doctor privatus" IS "supreme judge of the Church", not so much.
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!
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostNot 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).
And bishops don't unilaterally condemn something either; that's what councils are for.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostAnd bishops don't unilaterally condemn something either; that's what councils are for.
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!
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostBishops 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.
Have fun bouncing around in your own little world; you're far too sloppy in your arguments to be taken seriously.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostI 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.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment