We need to get the opinion of someone who is shaved

@dicknig1054

2 ай бұрын

This mixing of rites has got to stop!

@dwightschrute900

Ай бұрын

We need to get the opinion of someone who is not shaved

@krkenheimer

Ай бұрын

@@bman5257 incredibly common Taylor Marshall garbage opinion

@ZeDocta1

Ай бұрын

@@bman5257 There are some pictures of Pope Francis with a beard photoshopped on him, and he indeed looks based.

@LordMazdamundi

Ай бұрын

Once shaved always shaved? 🪒

'Above my pay grade.' Thank God! Such tender mercies are most welcome. Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o)

We need a public debate between Michael Lofton and Erick Ybarra 🙏

@rx0102

Ай бұрын

that is beneath Erick, Lofton is a sophist. He can never concede one millimeter to the most obvious truths because he thinks his salvation rides on papolatry.

@matthewoburke7202

Ай бұрын

@@rx0102 Can you back this up with any evidence? Because otherwise, this is just slanderous. What are the "obvious truths" you are talking about?

@rx0102

Ай бұрын

@@matthewoburke7202 "Blessing the couple [two individuals in a copulαting relationship presenting themselves together] is NOT blessing the union," a hilarious sophistic distinction if there ever was one. Or how when there are scandals about the Pope in the news he will make content focusing on something else that could be spun positively. We can see right now that he has not made any videos on Francis endorsing James Martin's disgusting, blαsphεmous new book or the meeting he had with him today where he endorsed Martin's hεrετιcαl ministry, but has made a second (even third) video about the Pope's use of a slur so Lofton can make him look "based." Erick has shown against Jay Dyer that he can come out on top against bad faith debaters, but there is a reason he hasn't debated Jay again.

@carsonianthegreat4672

27 күн бұрын

@@matthewoburke7202that’s not what slander means

@matthewoburke7202

27 күн бұрын

@@carsonianthegreat4672 Yes, it does. Calling someone a sophist, and a "papaloter" if founded on false claims is slander.

I love that thumbnail lmao

@aguspare1992

Ай бұрын

Lofton believes in infallible safety while Erick does not.

I believe Michael Lofton’s position is that non-definitive papal teachings can contain error, but never heresy. Although I wouldn’t know his thoughts on specific censures.

@xehaexox

Ай бұрын

And typically the #1 accusation papal teachings receive from critics is heresy

@aguspare1992

Ай бұрын

Yes. That is his position.

@ZeDocta1

Ай бұрын

When he had Dr. John Joy on (who does not believe in the charism of safety, but does argue for a more wide-ranging view of infallibility) to discuss the question of the minor censures, he took the position that the minor censors were also infallible, not merely the censures on heresy and error. I am certain Lofton would say that the charism of safety would then include safety from any censure, including the minor ones like rash or offensive to pious ears.

@michaeldonohue8870

Ай бұрын

@@ZeDocta1 I do not think this represents Lofton's position because the reasoning in your comment is beside the point or a 'red-herring'. With respect to the minor censors and their infallibility - what is being discussed is a separate matter. Namely, could a Pope teach definitively ex-cathedra the following: "We decree, declare, and define, that X proposition is temerarious." Most theologians that I know of affirm that a Pope can do that - and there are countless examples in papal documents which seem to furnish support for that thesis. However, the present question is not "Can a Pope condemn ex-cathedra a proposition with a minor censure, or must it be a major censure?" ...But rather, the present question is "Can a Pope - outside of ex-cathedra teachings, and therefore non-definitively - teach a proposition which would fall under a censure?" All theologians answer yes to the above, because if a Pope teaches non-definitively, he can err (by definition). And if he can err, then his teaching can be censured as an error. Lofton's position is more nuanced, as he would say... his position is at least (to the best of my knowledge) that a Pope could not err to the extent of incurring a censure of heresy, but as to whether he could incur a minor censure - Lofton would almost certainly affirm that he could.

@xehaexox

Ай бұрын

@@michaeldonohue8870 Yeah I agree with this assessment. Lofton has explicitly said papal teaching can contain error, he just hasn’t specified what that entails.

I'm very interested in this topic!!

Fiducia is bad sounding by its lack of condemnations of blessings to unrepenting couples. It is bad sounding to use only word salads and no condemnations.

This makes much sense, thank you.

Good stuff. We should also be able to universally accept a low safety. Not infallible, but a safety of papal teaching that is free from all censures in the vast majority of cases. Beyond a broad safety the possible opinions begin to branch in many iterations, as you say.

Does anyone know any good books on this from reputable authors?

Ybarra will yoke Lofton

I think we've been a bit off course in our understanding of the papacy since Boniface VIII (not that I am a Clement V fan - quite the contrary)... a misunderstanding which was accelerated by Innocent XI's and then Alexander VIII's novel (but still good) interventions in moral theology. Not fundamentally wrong... but something is just not right... The paradigm of "theological notes" is a refracted and seemingly practically unworkable version of what ought to be seen as (or is) a spectrum/continuum, where the fittingness of the protection of the Holy Spirit is more or less reasonably presumed according to the character of an utterance or document - as to its content in itself with relation to the Deposit of Faith, its obediential claim ("do not teach," vs. "do not recommend in confession," vs. "do not hold," etc.), its relation to the papacy, its solemnity of promulgation, and its intrinsic authority/plausibility. Look, if Gratian is content to call St. Gregory II's teaching on matrimony to be "contrary to apostolic and evangelical doctrine" in his pastoral letter to St. Boniface, that's a pretty big precedent for saying that popes can and do botch things VERY badly, and that it's okay to say so from time to time. But it has to be done in the right way by the right person, etc. (Yes, I know St. Alphonsus tries to rescue Gregory II - the point is that it's a very natural reading - and Gratian had no problem saying what he said.)

8:05 "Where does it extend?" From my reading, it seems (so not certain here) theologians would answer that it extends to teaching that bind all faithful. It is because dogmatic books would say that canon law and regulation for religious order are safe/infallible (in the sense that the content doesn't prescribe heresy. It could contain errors but not heresy).

Can you shave?

Who's right? Certaimly not you

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

*certainly

@tafazziReadChannelDescription

Ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomist insert T. O. S. breaking comeback