Some kind of censorship?

Here is an example of what should not happen:



Not a trace of the fact I replied to that comment. I did. A public sinner not in mortal sin is either an oxymoron (if not fulfilling external criteria for mortal sin, he cannot be a real public sinner) or an act of divination (if not fulfilling the internal criterium of wilful assent, that cannot be known as long as he continues to fulfil the external criteria).

When it did not seem to go through first time, I reposted and it turned out "you seem to have already said that".

Can someone at Nanterre University Library have prevented the comment from going through?

Here is an example of what should happen, when no one here did such a thing:



So is this:



When Heresy pretends to be Tradition by Pedro Gabriel · Published April 3, 2019 · Updated April 3, 2019 https://wherepeteris.com/when-heresy-pretends-to-be-tradition/?unapproved=3934&moderation-hash=497b09f81f4c3631a8165eb289b0c7ac#comment-3934

Btw, here is a little dialogue between me and (among others) Pedro Gabriel:

I

Hans Georg Lundahl

April 3, 2019 at 4:14 pm

“He always sends errors into the world in pairs—pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. ”

This was noted by Chesterton as well.

A Classic would actually be Sabellius and after him Paul of Samosata with Arius.

“So, while it is true we should hold on to tradition in order to avoid falling prey of novelties which have nothing to do with Christian doctrine, it is also sadly true that clinging too much to tradition can result in a kind of idolatry. ”

It so happens, to Chesterton it was precisely tradition – certainly interpreted through the magisterium, but through a magisterium serving tradition, which helped us escape falling into either of twin opposite errors.

Pedro Gabriel

April 3, 2019 at 4:30 pm

Precisely. Tradition and Magisterium are two interconnected and inseparable entities. But I’m not the one claiming that they exist apart from each other so that you can pit one against the other. And neither is Chesterton.

Hans Georg Lundahl

[Your comment is awaiting moderation. This is a preview, your comment will be visible after it has been approved.]

April 4, 2019 at 8:17 am

Neither am I, I am no longer SSPX.

You are asking Catholics to reject SSPX (which is probably correct, as long as they retain a position no longer connected to a realistic hope one of modern “Popes” will say “my bad”) and instead chose obedience to “Pope Francis” or obedience to either of Pope Michael or the more realistics antipope Alexander IX.

II

Ashpenaz

April 3, 2019 at 3:52 pm

Doctrine doesn’t change, but as new information comes in, we see the deposit of faith more clearly. The Church used to teach that the earth was the center of the universe; as new information came in, She taught that the sun was the center. The doctrine didn’t change; the Church simply had information she didn’t have before.

I think the same will happen with contraception and same-sex relationships. I don’t think the current teachings are wrong, per se; they are poorly informed. We have a better scientific understanding of sexuality than did Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, and even Paul VI. The best peer-reviewed science tells us that homosexual orientation is inborn and irreversible. Social science has documented the quality of gay relationships and families led by same-sex parents. The laity, based on polls, is clearly hearing the Holy Spirit on this issue much faster than the hierarchy. Based on that, I believe that once the bishops take full consideration of all the relevant scientific data, they will find that the deposit of faith has always contained the teaching that homosexual acts are licit within a lifelong, monogamous same-sex relationship. It won’t be a new teaching–it will a development of our understanding which will be seen to be in continuity with tradition–similar to what we have seen with usury, slavery, and the death penalty.

Pedro Gabriel

April 3, 2019 at 4:24 pm

Science can’t pronounce itself on whether a certain behavior is sinful or not. Sinfulness is not a scientifically measurable attribute, but rather a moral and a spiritual one.

Hans Georg Lundahl

April 3, 2019 at 4:28 pm

“The best peer-reviewed science tells us that homosexual orientation is inborn and irreversible.”

Not even true.

The only orientation which is known to be stable is heterosexual.

Homos become bis and bis become exclusive heteros, for instance by marriage. And passing through bi is not necessary.

Pete Vickery

April 3, 2019 at 11:38 pm

Science used to teach that the earth was the center of the universe. The Ptolemaic model existed for over 1000 years and was the scientific consensus. It took an unknown Catholic cleric (Nicolaus Copernicus) to quietly state in his work De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe. This was decades before Galileo. We now know that neither the sun nor the earth are the center of the universe although Copernicus was closer to the truth since the sun is the center of our solar system. Copernicus sent a copy of his work to Pope Paul III. The Church was interested but also attentive to the scientific consensus that had not yet changed. Regardless of all this, the idea that science had proffered and the Church concurred with (Ptolemy’s Theory) had nothing to do with faith or morals. Pope Francis may be dead wrong about global warming yet this will have zero impact on doctrinal or dogmatic teachings of the church. Whatever science finds out about homosexuality may or may not be accepted by the Church. But whether the Church believes the scientific consensus or not does not imply that the Church accepts the licitness of the homosexual act.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Science used to teach that the earth was the center of the universe."

Why would that be wrong?

"Whatever science finds out about homosexuality may or may not be accepted by the Church. But whether the Church believes the scientific consensus or not does not imply that the Church accepts the licitness of the homosexual act."

How many "in the Church" are already saying it is illicit for a homosexual to try to get married - to someone of the opposite sex?

I Tim 4:3

III

carn

April 3, 2019 at 10:17 pm

You asked a question, so you deserve an answer:

“Where does it say, in any authoritative document (emphasis on the word “authoritative”), that the faithful should prooftext Church documents against past magisterial teachings, and that if they find an alleged contradiction with the Magisterium of the current Pope, they can dismiss it and disobey him?”

https://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=55

” I am astonished that you are so promptly turning away from the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are going over to a different gospel-

7 not that it is another gospel; except that there are trouble-makers among you who are seeking to pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But even if we ourselves or an angel from heaven preaches to you a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let God’s curse be on him.

9 I repeat again what we declared before: anyone who preaches to you a gospel other than the one you were first given is to be under God’s curse.”

That Church document has been repeatedly confirmed to be authoritative since about 1600 years.

Accordingly, it is Catholic teaching that if catholics, priests, bishops, cardinals, popes, saints, apostels and/or angels or any other creature (besides maybe Christ himself) come along and preach a gospel different from the gospel taught before, the faithful should stick with the gospel taught before.

The only mean available for the faithful to determine whether some gospel taught now is different from the one before is their own mind, heart and prayer.

As furthermore the Church authoritatively teaches at least as long that “Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.'” one can presume that any new gospel wherein something formerly being “yes” is now a “no” – or in other words contradicts the old gospel – is candidate for rejection by the faithful.

Accordingly, the Church has authoritatively taught and still teaches that if any catholic, priest, bishop, cardinal, pope, saint, apostle or angel teaches something contradicting prior teaching, faithful are to reject it. Accordingly, the faithful have the duty to “prooftext Church documents against past magisterial teachings” if there is indication that such a thing might be going on, to determine whether there is some new gospel is preached in contradiction to the old one.

The only thing absolutely exempt from such prooftexting are ex cathedra items.

And that of course does not change that there is with such prooftexting the risk of falling oneself to a false gospel, e.g. when one gets the gospel preached so far wrong.

Declarations of the catholics, priests, bishops, cardinals, popes, saints, apostles and/or angels that although they preach a new gospel different from the old one that there is no contradiction between their new gospel and the old one are obviously null and void, as the respective catholic, priest, bishop, cardinal, pope, saint, apostle and/or angel is to be under God’s curse, which obviously implies that his/her declarations have no longer authority.

Pedro Gabriel

April 4, 2019 at 4:49 am

There is nothing in that quote saying that you should prooftext the Magisterium so that if you think you find an alleged contradiction with previous magisterial documents you can dismiss the teachings.

That is your personal spin on that biblical quote. Surpisingly, it is also incredibly similar to the spin from Protestants, who use that same quote repeatedly to resist the teachings of the Pope.

The difference is that they are consistent in applying it. They don’t say that ex cathedra documents are exempt from this like you do. Why should they? Why shouldn’t we prooftext past teaching (namely Scripture) to find alleged contradictions with ex cathedra pronouncements and reject them if we find them contradictory? Why not prooftext the Immaculate Conception dogma with the “everyone has sinned and fallen from grace from God” biblical quote?

In fact, what the Church has traditionally taught is that this St. Paul quote *can’t* be used to justify a faith based on personal interpretation apart from the Church. To claim otherwise is indeed a “new gospel” that should, per St. Paul’s quote, be rejected.

In the meantime I note with interest that you have gone from “I don’t really know what the Pope teaches since it is unclear, so I’m not dissenting” to “We can dissent if we prooftext past magisterial teachings and think we found a contradiction”. But the latter, besides having no magisterial backing (as you have not been able to provide apart from a Protestantized reading of a biblical quote taken out of context) is much more wrong and harmful to the faith than giving communion to divorced and remarried not in mortal sin, or than saying that the death penalty is not admissible today.

Hans Georg Lundahl

[Your comment is awaiting moderation. This is a preview, your comment will be visible after it has been approved.]

April 4, 2019 at 11:36 am

Session IV of Trent has “contra eum sensum, quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cuius est iudicare de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum Sanctarum,” therefore the magisterium is bound to its past.

In the case you both admit a contradiction with the tenuit part and an actual magisterial tenet of that contradiction, one of your admissions needs to be wrong.

I can respect the stance “I remain wrong, because I don’t know which of two possible rights is the right one”, like a High Church Anglican not sure whether to become Catholic or Orthodox.

Just because your opponent needs to be wrong on one of two points, it need not be the one where he contradicts you, it can be the one where he agrees with you – as I think is the case with SSPX and yourself.