Nihil Obstat Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Do you have a source for that? I do not recall any explicit statements from the Vatican stating that SSPX is not heretical, but perhaps I have not seen it if such a statement exists. Or is your argument here that the Vatican recognizes it because she has not made an explicit statement that SSPX is heretical? That would seem to be an argument from silence, which, generally speaking, are not very persuasive. But it is perfectly obvious that they are not heretics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 I read posts about Belgian priests and one bishop in particular arguing to bless same-sex unions. I don't know how much farther it goes than that. As I posted, the synod will have interesting things to say. There is much that has gone on, and still takes place, in the Dutch and Belgian provinces that would make a decent Catholic's hair stand on end. We ought to pray for the decent bishops and priests - they are not many and their lives are made very difficult, not just by non-Catholics but also by the non-Catholics (sic) within the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catlick Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Do you have a source for that? I do not recall any explicit statements from the Vatican stating that SSPX is not heretical, but perhaps I have not seen it if such a statement exists. Or is your argument here that the Vatican recognizes it because she has not made an explicit statement that SSPX is heretical? That would seem to be an argument from silence, which, generally speaking, are not very persuasive. Well, there's an argument from... cooperation, for lack of a better term. Recently Mgr. Fellay has been named judge in a Church court dealing with a SSPX-priest allegedly guilty of sexual abuse. Also, what Catholic dogma does SSPX reject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 But it is perfectly obvious that they are not heretics. Well. Maybe it is obvious to you. I do not know that they are heretical. But I do not see why they should be given the benefit of the doubt any more so than any other protestant group. Do the works that they publish get the "Nihil Obstat"? It appears to me that they are in schism, although the Church has not formally declared it out of what appears to be a hope to bring them back within the fold. And I was under the impression that they teach their followers that the new mass is invalid and that they should not attend it. I do not see any good reason why any group that for all practical purposes is in schism should be assumed to be orthodox. For what reason should they be given the benefit of the doubt when they reject Vatican II and when they reject the authority of the Pope (for all practical purposes)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 You should do a bit more homework first. Very little of what you said is both correct and relevant in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catlick Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 For what reason should they be given the benefit of the doubt when they reject Vatican II (..)? Vatican II being a pastoral council and not a dogmatic one, one can reject Vatican II in its entirety and still be completely Catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 You should do a bit more homework first. Very little of what you said is both correct and relevant in this case. I take it that you disagree with what I wrote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Vatican II being a pastoral council and not a dogmatic one, one can reject Vatican II in its entirety and still be completely Catholic. Yes. It is possible that they are not heretical. As you will note - I have not asserted that they are heretics. As I wrote - I do not know whether or not they are. And I do not see any reason to give a group that is borderline-schismatic the benefit of the doubt. Again - why should I? You have made a positive assertion that they are not heretical. The person who makes a positive assertion carries the burden to provide evidence that the assertion is true. If you have any affirmative evidence (as opposed to an argument from silence) I am open to considering it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 I take it that you disagree with what I wrote? A few of your points and a few of what seem to be initial assumptions on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Actually the positive claim on the existence of heresy is your own. In the Church as with criminal law they would be presumed innocent of heresy unless proven otherwise. That would be your job. One cannot positively assert a negative. That is a painful abuse of language proof and logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Actually the positive claim on the existence of heresy is your own. In the Church as with criminal law they would be presumed innocent of heresy unless proven otherwise. That would be your job. One cannot positively assert a negative. That is a painful abuse of language proof and logic. I have not made a claim on the existence of heresy. Again - I wrote that I do not know whether or not they are heretics. So specifically - what is it that you believe my job is exactly? I do not know what it is that you believe I must do. As for the presumption of innocence - I am not aware of any formal obligation to personally believe that any particular person or group is not in heresy, but please correct me if you have something specific to that effect. From what I understand, the legal presumption of innocence applies to the imposition of penalties in the context of a trial or a tribunal. I am not aware that it applies to what I must believe. In your particular case - you wrote that it is obvious that they are not heretics. Now - why is it obvious? I do not believe that is such a crazy question to ask. Simply because you said so, or because there is good evidence to support what you wrote? If you have good evidence to support what you wrote - I am open to considering it. Or, are you saying that it is obvious that they are not heretics because they have not been formally declared heretics? If that is your argument - I can accept that (although I would not find it very persuasive). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) It is a priori true that you might or might not be a penguin. But just because that is true and I said it does not mean you are obligated to prove you are not a penguin. But by saying you might be I am clearly implying that I think that possibility is actual. I have no evidence implying that you might be. Edited June 29, 2015 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 I have not made a claim on your penguinhood. But I do not know whether you are or are not a penguin. Do you have any evidence that you are not a penguin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Innocent until proven guilty. Not, guilty until proven innocent. Edited June 29, 2015 by Credo in Deum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Innocent until proven guilty. Not, guilty until proven innocent. Just what I would expect a penguin to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now