TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

What happens then when a vast majority of the 'living magisterium' teaches and believes heresy and the Pope goes along with it under pressure and/or a desire to get along with the secular powers?

The few bishops who hold the truth continue to respectfully make their objections known, and then the heresy is corrected and the true doctrine is dogmatically defined by a council or infallibly declared by a subsequent Pope at a later time, because the Church cannot err.

[KnightofChrist]

20 minutes ago, Peace said:

The few bishops who hold the truth continue to respectfully make their objections known, and then the heresy is corrected and the true doctrine is dogmatically defined by a council or infallibly declared by a subsequent Pope at a later time, because the Church cannot err.

The question as asked was about during the heresy, not afterwards, in relation to your quoted statements.

Does it matter if the 'living magisterium' teaches heresy? Do the laity have the right to object and go back and say "the Church has taught this" or "the Church has always taught that"? Would that simply be an opinion? If that opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from the 'living magisterium', then are the laity to assent to their teaching?

Edited August 13, 2021 by KnightofChrist

[Peace]

4 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

This is absolutely false.

What do you mean its false? It's written right here:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

4 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Any Catholic who knows the Church's unchanging teaching on faith or morals is called to defend that teaching, especially when it is challenged by the "wolves" present in the Church.

There are absolutely cases when the laity are called to learn the teaching of the Church on their own, and there are cases when they are called to recognize heresy even among the authority of the Church.

How are you any different than a Protestant with a history book then?

Sure, you have a right to make your objections and concerns known, to bring those concerns to your superiors, after your conscience cannot allow you to to otherwise once you have attempted in good faith to understand and give assent to the teaching that you cannot agree with.

4 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

And my case is easily provable.  There are bishops today who have publicly said that the Eucharist is merely a symbol, who do not believe in the True Presence.  Are you not called to correct them?  Are you going to remain silent in the face of such as insult to God?  Aren't you afraid of meeting your Judge, only to hear Him ask you, "Why didn't you defend Me?"

Also, St. Paul corrected Peter, the first pope.  That should be example enough for you to abandon your incorrect view.

First of all, St. Paul is an Apostle. You are neither an apostle, a bishop, or a priest, the last time I checked. So the St. Paul argument does not work. St. Paul correcting St. Peter is not a carte-blanch for every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the street to start "correcting" the Pope on an internet-forum.

Secondly, yes, yes, I am sure there are plenty of Catholic bishops walking around today who deny the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. There are also plenty of Catholic bishops who advocate for the rape and murder of infants, and that married men and women should marry their dog to form a 3-way polygamous marriage.

Look, you can create these extreme fantasy-world cases that would clearly offend the conscience of any faithful Catholic, but that things like that barely ever happen and that is not really the situation we are dealing with. We are dealing with complex, gray-areas like the infamous footnote in Amoris or what have you.

Although I do not know, I suspect that it is not your conscience that is at play here. I suspect that it is your pride, in thinking that you know the faith better than the Pope and the majority of bishops, and that you cannot comprehend that your understanding of the faith, Scripture or Tradition, could be incorrect.

But that is speculation of course. I do not know.

4 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Otherwise you are functionally no different than a Protestant with a history book.

Wrong how? Protestants believe that each individual has the ultimate authority to decide for himself what Scripture and Tradition teaches, and that they have no obligation to give religious assent to a superior.

I don't see how you are functionally any different in the way in which you approach church authority.

[Peace]

35 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

The question as asked was about during the heresy, not afterwards, in relation to your quoted statements.

Does it matter if the 'living magisterium' teaches heresy? Do the laity have the right to object and go back and say "the Church has taught this" or "the Church has always taught that"? Would that simply be an opinion? If that opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from the 'living magisterium', then are the laity to assent to their teaching?

Well for one, if we are talking about heresy, the Church's living Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. Holy Orders is a sacrament with special graces proper to that sacrament. The Holy Sprit does not guide every Tom, Dick and Harry layperson into a proper interpretation of Sacred Scripture and Tradition.  And every priest and especially bishops has 10 or 20 times the level of proper theological study than that of the average layperson. This is why the Church's Living Magisterium gets it right 99.9999% of the time while these various layperson objectors that you seem to esteem get it wrong 99.9999% of the time. Most of the heresy to which you object comes from the laity. It is the Church's Living Magisterium that has upheld the truth. Laypeople who want to correct the bishops try to paint the picture to be the opposite, naturally. They see themselves as the "true defenders of the authentic faith" or what have you, but for the most part they are just wrong and too prideful to admit that their superiors are more adept than they are to handle complex theological issues.

I mean, you guys always bring up the one or two times in the 2000 history of the Church where the Pope taught heresy, and act like it's an every day occurrence. It literally happens like once every 1000 years.

Secondly, the Church's Living Magisterium cannot dogmatically teach heresy. Again, the Church cannot err. You can have individual bishops at individual points in time that err, but the Church cannot dogmatically bind any Christian to believe heresy. God prevents the Pope and the bishops from dogmatically binding error, which is why no dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church has ever been proven to be in error. So your hypothetical is impossible in a strict sense.

Now, if we are talking about "teach" in a loose sense about particular issues that have not been dogmatically defined and in which the teaching appears to be incorrect doctrine that disagrees with your understanding of Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, the topic is discussed in the document below, albeit with respect to lay-theologians. You do, of course, have a right to object and to make your objections known if the teaching is something that your conscience cannot allow you accept, if carried out in the proper manner discussed below.

Part of it is posted below, but the following section titled "Dissent" is also relevant.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

13. "God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations"(8) He bestowed upon His Church, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, a participation in His own infallibility.(9) Thanks to the "supernatural sense of Faith", the People of God enjoys this privilege under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, which is the sole authentic interpreter of the Word of God, written or handed down, by virtue of the authority which it exercises in the name of Christ.(10)

14. As successors of the apostles, the bishops of the Church "receive from the Lord, to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth, the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain to salvation...".(11) They have been entrusted then with the task of preserving, explaining, and spreading the Word of God of which they are servants.(12)

. . .

25. Even when collaboration takes place under the best conditions, the possibility cannot be excluded that tensions may arise between the theologian and the Magisterium. The meaning attributed to such tensions and the spirit with which they are faced are not matters of indifference. If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill their respective roles while practicing dialogue.

26. In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.

27. Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.

28. The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.

Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

29. In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.

30. If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth.

31. It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.

For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

@PeaceHow do you square that answer, your statements to @fides' Jack that prompted my question, with the Arian heresy? Which was taught by 2/3 of the bishops and even in part the Pope. 

Edited August 14, 2021 by KnightofChrist

[Peace]

19 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

@PeaceHow do you square that answer, your statements to @fides' Jack that prompted my question, with the Arian heresy? Which was taught by 2/3 of the bishops and even in part the Pope. 

Well I knew that is what you were alluding to. It's either that, St. Paul correcting St. Peter, or Pope Honorius denying the two wills of Christ when laypeople want to justify disagreeing with their superiors.

It's somewhat amusing because these are the same three things that anti-Catholics use when they want to attach the authority of the Church.

As for squaring my answer - I would proceed exactly as instructed in the document I posted if I lived during that time and the bishops and the popes taught something that I thought was incorrect.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Well I knew that is what you were alluding to. It's either that, St. Paul correcting St. Peter, or Pope Honorius denying the two natures of Christ when laypeople want to justify disagreeing with their superiors.

As for squaring my answer - I would proceed exactly as instructed in the document I posted if I lived during that time and the bishops and the popes taught something that I thought was incorrect.

Doesn't really fit with your statements to fides' Jack. When you made those statements I doubt you had the Aryan heresy in mind. If someone like Jack lived during that time he'd have to submit to the bishops teaching Arianism following your position. 

[Peace]

30 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Doesn't really fit with your statements to fides' Jack. When you made those statements I doubt you had the Aryan heresy in mind. If someone like Jack lived during that time he'd have to submit to the bishops teaching Arianism following your position. 

 

Well, the doctrine on the Trinity has been dogmatically defined and we now know infallibly at this point in time that the doctrine is correct. We have the hindsight of infallibility.

But the hindsight of infallibility and absolute knowledge of the truth cannot be applied to your hypothetical, because at the time of the Arian controversy the doctrine had not been dogmatically defined. It was indeed a controversy with many views on many sides.

Since at that time the layperson did not have the benefit of an infalliable dogma and the absolute knowledge of the truth, let's run with your hypothetical a bit to illustrate a point.

Let's say that Mike was a lay Catholic living during that time. Mike's Bishop was a Trinitarian Christian and taught Trinitarian doctrine to his followers, including Mike.

Mike, with no dogmatic teaching in hand, studied the Bible on his own, reviewed the writings of early Christians, researched what he believed to be the the Tradition of the Church, and based on this research concluded that the Arian position was correct, and felt that his bishop's Trinitarian position was wrong.

Should Mike have submitted to the Trinitarian position of his bishop despite his personal conclusions that Arianism was correct? Or should Mike have objected to the Trinitarian teaching of his bishop and continue to espouse Arianism because this is what his own research and study led him to believe was true?

I would like to hear your answer to that question.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Peace

[ZeroM]

Having been banned from the past 3 traditionalist sites, and catholic answers forums before that, as much as I think Francis' crackdown was bad and wrong, I can't say that the Trads didn't have it coming.  Take a look around the internet, and as much as people pretend otherwise, what you see on the internet can't really be dismissed as the lunatic fringe, because this is 2021 and everybody and everything is on the internet.  

[KnightofChrist]

On 8/12/2021 at 10:39 PM, Peace said:

Doesn't matter. The living magisterium is the only authentic interpreter of Sacred Tradition. You don't have the authority to go back and say "the Church has always taught this" or "the Church has always taught that." That is simply your opinion. If your opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from your superiors, then you are to assent to their teaching.

Otherwise you are functionally no different than a Protestant with a history book.

 

4 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

What happens then when a vast majority of the 'living magisterium' teaches and believes heresy and the Pope goes along with it under pressure and/or a desire to get along with the secular powers?

 

3 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

The question as asked was about during the heresy, not afterwards, in relation to your quoted statements.

Does it matter if the 'living magisterium' teaches heresy? Do the laity have the right to object and go back and say "the Church has taught this" or "the Church has always taught that"? Would that simply be an opinion? If that opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from the 'living magisterium', then are the laity to assent to their teaching?

 

1 hour ago, Peace said:

 

Well, the doctrine on the Trinity has been dogmatically defined and we now know infallibly at this point in time that the doctrine is correct. We have the hindsight of infallibility.

But the hindsight of infallibility and absolute knowledge of the truth cannot be applied to your hypothetical, because at the time of the Arian controversy the doctrine had not been dogmatically defined. It was indeed a controversy with many views on many sides.

Since at that time the layperson did not have the benefit of an infalliable dogma and the absolute knowledge of the truth, let's run with your hypothetical a bit to illustrate a point.

Let's say that Mike was a lay Catholic living during that time. Mike's Bishop was a Trinitarian Christian and taught Trinitarian doctrine to his followers, including Mike.

Mike, with no dogmatic teaching in hand, studied the Bible on his own, reviewed the writings of early Christians, researched what he believed to be the the Tradition of the Church, and based on this research concluded that the Arian position was correct, and felt that his bishop's Trinitarian position was wrong.

Should Mike have submitted to the Trinitarian position of his bishop despite his personal conclusions that Arianism was correct? Or should Mike have objected to the Trinitarian teaching of his bishop and continue to espouse Arianism because this is what his own research and study led him to believe was true?

I would like to hear your answer to that question.

In context to the Arian heresy, our quoted posts that are attached above, I answer that the bishop is Saint Athanasius and is a excommunicated, perhaps schismatic, Protestant with a history book. He or rather any simple individual laity who would have believed as Athanasius. 

[Peace]

 

8 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

In context to the Arian heresy, our quoted posts that are attached above, I answer that the bishop is Saint Athanasius and is a excommunicated, perhaps schismatic, Protestant with a history book. He or rather any simple individual laity who would have believed as Athanasius. 

Thank you for the response, but that is not an answer to the question I asked you.

I would like an answer the question I asked you, which is based on the hypothetical I presented, in which the bishop held the Trinitarian position, and the layperson concluded that the Arian position was correct after his own research and study on the issue. Should the layperson have followed his bishop, or followed his own research and study? More importantly, why?

Is the layperson in my hypothetical also a "Protestant with a history book". Why or why not?

Edited August 14, 2021 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

 

Thank you for the response, but that is not an answer to the question I asked you.

I would like an answer the question I asked you, which is based on the hypothetical I presented, in which the bishop held the Trinitarian position, and the layperson concluded that the Arian position was correct after his own research and study on the issue. Should the layperson have followed his bishop, or followed his own research and study? More importantly, why?

Is the layperson in my hypothetical also a "Protestant with a history book". Why or why not?

You've never really answered the question I originally asked you in context to your statements to Jack. The reason being you don't want to admit you went way too far in some places. And cannot be squared with times when heresy nearly consumes all the bishops and even the Pope. Individual laymen would be required to fall into heresy. Because that is what the 'living magisterium', aka the Pope and 2/3 of bishops taught at the time. Who also condemned and excommunicated Catholics like Saint Athanasius who did not go along. 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

You've never really answered the question I originally asked you in context to your statements to Jack. The reason being you don't want to admit you went way too far in some places. And cannot be squared with times when heresy nearly consumes all the bishops and even the Pope. Individual laymen would be required to fall into heresy. Because that is what the 'living magisterium', aka the Pope and 2/3 of bishops taught at the time. Who also condemned and excommunicated Catholics like Saint Athanasius who did not go along. 

I thought I answered your question but I will attempt to answer it again to your satisfaction. If not, kindly let me know exactly what else it is that you would like me to answer.

1) If the situation were that Jack was a Christian living during the times of the Arian controversy and Jack's bishop was teaching Arianism and instructed Jack to follow this Arian teaching; and Jack concluded based upon his own study and research that the Trinitarian position was correct, Jack should have followed the instruction of his bishop until the point in time when the council dogmatically resolved the controversy. If Jack's conscience absolutely would not allow him to follow his bishop at that time, he could then refuse to follow the teaching and make his objections known in the proper manner set forth above in Donus Veritatis. In either case, Jack could have rested assured that "with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail" as Donus Veritatis teaches.

2) As for your point that "individual laymen would be required to fall into heresy" that is simply impossible as noted above - because the Church can never dogmatically teach error. Only a Pope or a council can dogmatically bind doctrine on the faithful, and God prevents them from dogmatically binding error, as you very well know.

3) As for as St. Athanasius supposedly having been excommunicated by the Pope, that is fan-fiction created by the SSPX in order to justify their schism. There is no historical evidence of his excommunication, as discussed here:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Infallibility

And the supposed letters upon which those arguments are based were forged, as discussed here:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia is the reference for both links.

4) I also find your claim that 2/3 of the bishops in the world were Arian during the Arian controversy to be SSPX fan-fiction, and that Pope Liberius was an Arian also to be SSPX fan-fiction. But I will grant you that the Arian position was widespread.

Now, I think its fair that you answer my question since I have answered yours (again). Could you please give a clear answer to the question, without attempting to change the hypothetical? Thank you.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Peace

[Lilllabettt]

I'm enjoying this a great deal.

[KnightofChrist]

On 8/14/2021 at 12:23 PM, Peace said:

I thought I answered your question but I will attempt to answer it again to your satisfaction. If not, kindly let me know exactly what else it is that you would like me to answer.

1) If the situation were that Jack was a Christian living during the times of the Arian controversy and Jack's bishop was teaching Arianism and instructed Jack to follow this Arian teaching; and Jack concluded based upon his own study and research that the Trinitarian position was correct, Jack should have followed the instruction of his bishop until the point in time when the council dogmatically resolved the controversy. If Jack's conscience absolutely would not allow him to follow his bishop at that time, he could then refuse to follow the teaching and make his objections known in the proper manner set forth above in Donus Veritatis. In either case, Jack could have rested assured that "with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail" as Donus Veritatis teaches.

2) As for your point that "individual laymen would be required to fall into heresy" that is simply impossible as noted above - because the Church can never dogmatically teach error. Only a Pope or a council can dogmatically bind doctrine on the faithful, and God prevents them from dogmatically binding error, as you very well know.

Are you still telling me you're changing your position without telling you're changing your position?

On 8/14/2021 at 12:23 PM, Peace said:

3) As for as St. Athanasius supposedly having been excommunicated by the Pope, that is fan-fiction created by the SSPX in order to justify their schism. There is no historical evidence of his excommunication, as discussed here:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Infallibility

And the supposed letters upon which those arguments are based were forged, as discussed here:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia is the reference for both links.

"St. Athanasius, writing apparently at the end of 357, says: "Liberius, having been exiled, gave in after two years, and, in fear of the death with which he was threatened, signed", i.e. the condemnation of Athanasius himself (Hist. Ar., xli); and again: "If he did not endure the tribulation to the end yet he remained in his exile for two years knowing the conspiracy against me." - Saint Athanasius, Source: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

"A great debate existed over the question of whether Liberius capitulated during his exile. However, several orthodox sources admit that he did consent to condemn Athanasius and/or sign a semi-Arian creed. After the death of Constantius II in 361, Liberius appears more orthodox again. He died on September 24, 366. Though not canonized in his own Roman Catholic tradition, he is recognized as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church." - New World Encyclopedia, Source: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pope_Liberius#Liberius.27_lapse_into_semi-Arianism

"It is true that St. Athanasius was condemned by Pope Liberius though he was the leader of the defenders of orthodoxy against Arianism at the time. Pope Liberius was a weak man (the first Pope after St. Peter never honored as a saint) and he was imprisoned and probably had been tortured to force him to support the Arian heresy, at the time he condemned St. Athansius. He was therefore obviously acting under duress, as St. Athanasius pointed out when he refused to accept the validity of the excommunication. Though Pope Liberius did condemn St. Athanasius under heavy pressure from his captors, he refused to sign a clearly Arian statement of faith, but did sign an equivocal statement which could be interpreted either in an orthodox or an Arian sense." - Warren H Carroll, EWTN Source: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/has-any-pope-been-guilty-of-heresy-1118

"Liberius eventually signed, possibly under duress, a document repudiating Nicene Christianity in favor of Arianism and supporting the ousting of Athanasius." - Catholic.org, Source: https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=1010

SSPX Fan-Fiction writers? I can find more...

On 8/14/2021 at 12:23 PM, Peace said:

4) I also find your claim that 2/3 of the bishops in the world were Arian during the Arian controversy to be SSPX fan-fiction, and that Pope Liberius was an Arian also to be SSPX fan-fiction. But I will grant you that the Arian position was widespread.

"Arianism, in Christianity, the Christological (concerning the doctrine of Christ) position that Jesus, as the Son of God, was created by God. It was proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius and was popular throughout much of the Eastern and Western Roman empires, even after it was denounced as a heresy by the Council of Nicaea (325)." - Britannica, Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism

"It involved most church members—from simple believers, priests, and monks to bishops, emperors, and members of Rome's imperial family." - Wikipedia, Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#cite_note-FOOTNOTEHanson2005127–128-14

“The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian.” - Saint Jerome, The dialogue against the Luciferians, Source: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1305/_PG.HTM

Again, SSPX Fan-Fiction writers? Again, I can find more but I've not the time I once had to devote to long discussions on Phatmass.

On 8/14/2021 at 12:23 PM, Peace said:

Now, I think its fair that you answer my question since I have answered yours (again). Could you please give a clear answer to the question, without attempting to change the hypothetical? Thank you.

Perhaps, when you've admitted you've changed your position. I'm still not able to square your position now with your original statements to Jack. So clear and strong words do not fit with your revised position.

On 8/12/2021 at 10:39 PM, Peace said:

Doesn't matter. The living magisterium is the only authentic interpreter of Sacred Tradition. You don't have the authority to go back and say "the Church has always taught this" or "the Church has always taught that." That is simply your opinion. If your opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from your superiors, then you are to assent to their teaching.

Otherwise you are functionally no different than a Protestant with a history book.