Augustinus74
Can a decree or doctrinal act of the Pope INVOLUNTARILY have a double meaning and therefore be ambiguous? Pope Sixtus IV, in the bull "Romani Pontificis provida" of November 27, 1477, explained that the "laudable desire" cannot be condemned, although expressed "ambiguously", but only when, and if, this "laudable desire" is supported by a well-defined "intention" - clear according to "right …More
Can a decree or doctrinal act of the Pope INVOLUNTARILY have a double meaning and therefore be ambiguous? Pope Sixtus IV, in the bull "Romani Pontificis provida" of November 27, 1477, explained that the "laudable desire" cannot be condemned, although expressed "ambiguously", but only when, and if, this "laudable desire" is supported by a well-defined "intention" - clear according to "right reason" - which "aims only at an evident good". As Pope Pius VI also points out, in the bull "Auctorem Fidei", the possibly ambiguous Document is in any case safe, but to be clarified, if it aims at the common good; if on the contrary it shrewdly leads to error (e.g. if it subverts a previously known or already defined interpretation of Sacred Scripture) it must be blamed and the Church has the duty to promptly remedy it, by condemnation. The Pontiff clearly describes where "salutary thought" ends and where "this fierce, interminable conspiracy" begins, to be condemned, never to be confirmed or justified "with brazen obstinacy".
Augustinus74
The reference to Paul's correction to Peter has nothing to do with the current affair we are experiencing.
Tertullian, in the "De præscriptione hæreticorum", point XXIII, stated about that Pauline correction of Peter: «(...) Moreover, even if Peter was blamed, because he, despite having lived with the gentiles, after he left to them and thus establishing the difference of persons, it must be …More
The reference to Paul's correction to Peter has nothing to do with the current affair we are experiencing.
Tertullian, in the "De præscriptione hæreticorum", point XXIII, stated about that Pauline correction of Peter: «(...) Moreover, even if Peter was blamed, because he, despite having lived with the gentiles, after he left to them and thus establishing the difference of persons, it must be recognized that this was not a defect of substance of doctrine, but of a simple external coexistence. And in fact he did not really proclaim a God different from the Creator God of Christians, nor another Christ, if not the One who was born of Mary; it did not shine any more hope to the mind of the faithful, if not that of the Resurrection ».
And the Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti noted: "The error contested by Paul to Peter was an error of practical conduct not of doctrine as Tertullian already saw in his tacitian style: Conversationis fuit viteum non praedicationis. Peter had not denied any of the doctrinal principles established in the Council of Jerusalem; however in practice he did not behave in accordance with them, believing, in good faith, to avoid impacts and contrasts with his behavior. The ancient Protestants who alleged the Antioch episode as proof of the doctrinal fallibility of the Pope of Rome fell into a blatant historical error; moreover they confused the infallibility of the teacher who teaches, with the impeccability of the Christian who works; perhaps also ignoring that the Pope of Rome confesses his sins and errors like any other Catholic Christian "(" Paul the Apostle ", § 368).
Ivan Tomas
How about an imperfect council and deposing of that Argentinian imposter.
AgentRose
Michael Voris is noticeably absent. Unite?
aderito
just informing catholics of what is going on in the vatican ,maybe too late ,what an event like pro -life every year ?