The False Ascension Of Antichrist

[kafka]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1499642' date='Apr 14 2008, 09:07 PM']or you didn't understand my post, or I didn't make myself clear. Both of which are possibilities.



In regards to the ordinary magisterium, the consensus of the bishops on a certain point is infallible. It is these points of consensus that are recorded in these books (except on the occasion when there is dissension, at which point such a disagreement is mentioned). The books themselves aren't infallible, they record infallible material. Regardless, the messages in them are infallible, unless there is considerable dissension.
Yes we have , and no I don't. I haven't had any. Antichrist and end-times haven't really been on my mind as a point of study lately. I'm sure in time I will take up reading on the subject again, but for now the end will come when it comes and all I want to do is live faithfully and if I do that it won't matter when the end comes.[/quote]
it is a possiblity we have a misunderstanding of terms. When you are referring to "Ordinary Magisterium" I think that is what I would call Ordinary & Universal Magisterium:

"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held." (Luman Gentium)

There is not yet a infalliby defined set of criteria (like Papal Infallibility (Vat I)) where one may decided if a teaching fall under Universal Magisterium. Therefore any list of in a manuel, etc of possible infallible definitions which fall in the Universal Magisterium are speculative. And these teachings usually take time to emerge, years, sometimes centuries.

[goldenchild17]

Well I don't know about Lumen Gentium as I don't subscribe to V2, but I believe it's been pretty well established that we are to give our assent to the doctrines put forth in these books, except in cases of dissension. Maybe a case of agree to disagree (especially since its not on the topic of this thread), peace

Edited April 15, 2008 by goldenchild17

[kafka]

And peace be with you. I like you, but seriously someday I am going to start a thread called "Contra Sedevecantism"

[goldenchild17]

haha yeah well be careful with that. mods don't take to kindly to such threads . Though you can email me anytime if you wanna go at it

Edited April 15, 2008 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

not to beat a dead horse (especially since this topic was supposed to be about antichrist), but here is part of a text that says what I was trying to. Again, agree to disagree, but I do believe this is a very important concept in understanding the extension of Catholic dogmatic teaching.

The Teaching of the Theological Manuals
Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton
(The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963, pp. 254-270:
[quote]It must be noted that we are speaking of the common teaching of these texts or manuals of fundamental dogmatic theology. Father Baum charges that one of the two conflicting groups at the Second Vatican Council was trying "to consecrate as eternal Catholic wisdom the theology of the manuals of the turn of the century." Of course this is the language of Madison Avenue rather than of the university lecture hall. It is calculated to make his readers imagine that many of the Fathers of the council were attempting to give to the teaching of the manuals in fundamental dogmatic theology a status, which that teaching had not previously enjoyed.

What seems to displease Father Baum is the fact that the unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians in any area relating to faith or morals is the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. The manuals, like those to which we have referred, are books actually used in the instruction of candidates for the priesthood. They are written by men who actually teach in the Church's own approved schools, under the direction of the Catholic hierarchy, and ultimately, through the activity of the Congregation of Seminaries and Universities, under the direction of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. The common or morally unanimous teaching of the manuals in this field is definitely a part of Catholic doctrine.

It is quite obvious that the individual opinions of individual authors do not constitute Catholic doctrine, and could not be set forth as such. But there is a fund of common teaching (like that which tells us that there are truths which the Church proposes to us as revealed by God, and which are not contained in any way within the inspired books of Holy Scripture), which is the unanimous doctrine of the manuals, and which is the doctrine of the Catholic Church. The unanimous teaching of the scholastic theologians has always been recognized as a norm of Catholic doctrine. It is unfortunate that today there should be some attempt to mislead people into imagining that it has ceased to be such a norm in the twentieth century.[/quote]

[kafka]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1499878' date='Apr 15 2008, 03:38 AM']not to beat a dead horse (especially since this topic was supposed to be about antichrist), but here is part of a text that says what I was trying to. Again, agree to disagree, but I do believe this is a very important concept in understanding the extension of Catholic dogmatic teaching.

The Teaching of the Theological Manuals
Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton
(The American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1963, pp. 254-270:[/quote]
Trust me, I know where you are coming from, I used to be a Traditional Catholic, and I realize the manifest errors of liberal theologians. Of course scholastic theology is valuable and precious. But it does have flaws. It isnt perfect. No theological system is perfect, as is no theologian. Even if the Pope and Bishops decide to place a certain theological system over another though at the time it might be wise it would be merely a temporal decision and subject to revision, since theology isnt a matter of faith & morals in Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture or previous Magisterium (though many doctrines within Dogmatic theology are infallible).

This is really a matter to be debated elsewhere. Why dont you start a thread?

[goldenchild17]

nah that's okay. I think I've already posted what I would have posted. If a mod wants to split these posts to another thread and continue it there then its fine with me. btw, this has nothing to do with be a "traditional Catholic." The sources I posted were from pre-Vatican II, but they apply to all Catholics as far as I'm concerned. Unless you have other sources which say that such things are not authoritative. But probably a good idea to let it slide unless a mod splits the posts elsewhere.

Edited April 15, 2008 by goldenchild17

[dairygirl4u2c]

i didn't read through this all... but catholic bibles say, and if you look on wikipedia it mentions that..... that the nero.
[url="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=zbD&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=revelation+nero&spell=1"]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&saf...ero&spell=1[/url]

Edited April 15, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[goldenchild17]

He certainly was (I'd say) AN antichrist. Not THE antichrist. Just like Scripture foretells Christ's coming with the lives of many Old Testament men, history foretells the coming of the final Antichrist with evil men in history that in some regards, compare.