purgatory can be articulated in terms of purification and temporal punishment because it is through the sacrificial charity for God undergone through suffering that purification takes place
sin merits this temporal punishment because every sin comes with it a lingering attachment that can only be expunged through perfect love, and perfect love is accomplished through sacrifice (Jn 15:13)
sin merits this temporal punishment because every sin comes with it a lingering attachment that can only be expunged through perfect love, and perfect love is accomplished through sacrifice (Jn 15:13)
❤236👎1🔥1
The Papacy throughout most of the last 2,000 years of history has generally served a noticeable purpose in imbuing the Church with a unique flavor of personality and character which allows us to see the Church as history’s great Protagonist against the forces of the World
❤264👍13👎6🔥3
Attempting to reconcile Ed Feser’s and Lofton’s position on whether a Pope can teach heresy at the level of his non-definitive Magisterial teaching capacity
It seems that what Lofton wants to safeguard is the integral safety of all magisterial teachings that seems to tie in with the Church’s indefectibility
It seems that what Feser wants to safeguard is a dose of realism for approaching verifiably troublesome Pontificates, as it would seem that if Lofton’s position is taken to its logical conclusion, you’d either have to engage in mental gymnastics or essentially leave the Faith
What I propose is the following:
You can still hold that all truly authoritative (or authentic) magisterial teachings are safe (ie, not opposed to definitive Catholic teaching) while also acknowledging that a Pope could attempt a magisterial teaching that does in fact contradict definitive teaching
How can this happen?
Well, a teaching is magisterial in the Catholic Church only if it is authoritative. That is to say, taught on behalf of the Church authentically exercising Her apostolic authority
Now if a Pope were to attempt a magisterial teaching that does in fact contradict definitive teaching, then such an act must be considered null and void because it is already overruled by the Church’s teaching authority. Therefore, the “attempted magisterial teaching” would thereby be relegated to the level of a papal private opinion. This is because, of necessity, it could not be authoritative because it would already be overruled by the Church’s definitive teaching authority.
It would be akin to a Pope attempting to celebrate a sacrament outside the rubrics essential for sacramental validity
What this does is safeguard the integral safety of the authentic Magisterium as an essential organ of the Church’s constitution, while also acknowledging that a Pope could make an attempt to exercise it in a heretical way, but would be prevented from successfully doing so.
This does not lead to the indefectibility of the Church becoming unfalsifiable because I also believe that if the Church has made no magisterial pronouncement on something, we can be assured that if the Pope teaches on it authoritatively, it will be safe (I.e., not opposed to other infallible rules of faith) because at that point it would not be running into something the Church has already taught by way of the Magisterium, and so there would be nothing to prevent it from being a genuine product of the authentic Magisterium, and the Holy Spirit protects all genuine products of the authentic Magisterium from becoming unsafe.
To preempt an objection, the infallibility of disciplinary decrees are another matter entirely, because there is no built-in ecclesial mechanism by which a Pope is bound by his predecessors in governing the discipline of the Church. Therefore, every universal disciplinary decree of the Holy See is per se unbounded by papal predecessors and for that reason we extend infallibility generally to these.
I realize this post has become absurdly long and hyper qualified, but I hope it made sense to some people
It seems that what Lofton wants to safeguard is the integral safety of all magisterial teachings that seems to tie in with the Church’s indefectibility
It seems that what Feser wants to safeguard is a dose of realism for approaching verifiably troublesome Pontificates, as it would seem that if Lofton’s position is taken to its logical conclusion, you’d either have to engage in mental gymnastics or essentially leave the Faith
What I propose is the following:
You can still hold that all truly authoritative (or authentic) magisterial teachings are safe (ie, not opposed to definitive Catholic teaching) while also acknowledging that a Pope could attempt a magisterial teaching that does in fact contradict definitive teaching
How can this happen?
Well, a teaching is magisterial in the Catholic Church only if it is authoritative. That is to say, taught on behalf of the Church authentically exercising Her apostolic authority
Now if a Pope were to attempt a magisterial teaching that does in fact contradict definitive teaching, then such an act must be considered null and void because it is already overruled by the Church’s teaching authority. Therefore, the “attempted magisterial teaching” would thereby be relegated to the level of a papal private opinion. This is because, of necessity, it could not be authoritative because it would already be overruled by the Church’s definitive teaching authority.
It would be akin to a Pope attempting to celebrate a sacrament outside the rubrics essential for sacramental validity
What this does is safeguard the integral safety of the authentic Magisterium as an essential organ of the Church’s constitution, while also acknowledging that a Pope could make an attempt to exercise it in a heretical way, but would be prevented from successfully doing so.
This does not lead to the indefectibility of the Church becoming unfalsifiable because I also believe that if the Church has made no magisterial pronouncement on something, we can be assured that if the Pope teaches on it authoritatively, it will be safe (I.e., not opposed to other infallible rules of faith) because at that point it would not be running into something the Church has already taught by way of the Magisterium, and so there would be nothing to prevent it from being a genuine product of the authentic Magisterium, and the Holy Spirit protects all genuine products of the authentic Magisterium from becoming unsafe.
To preempt an objection, the infallibility of disciplinary decrees are another matter entirely, because there is no built-in ecclesial mechanism by which a Pope is bound by his predecessors in governing the discipline of the Church. Therefore, every universal disciplinary decree of the Holy See is per se unbounded by papal predecessors and for that reason we extend infallibility generally to these.
I realize this post has become absurdly long and hyper qualified, but I hope it made sense to some people
👍138❤19👎11🤮3😱2
adhering to what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about homosexual and contraceptive acts being intrinsically evil (promulgated in 1992, mind you) should be a baseline prerequisite for any political movement that wants to call itself “conservative”, not an added bonus
👍357❤36👎2
basically if Pope Francis’ views on sexual ethics are more conservative than yours, you’re NOT conservative
👍332😁39🔥18❤6👎1
recent words of Benedict XVI on his own preparation for death
❤510😢13🤮4🎉3👎1
pope benedict xvi was far from perfect, but in terms of sheer intellectual accomplishments he will be remembered centuries from now as a theological Giant
❤298👎11🔥5😁4👍2