It is currently Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:01 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
 Negative Infallibility of Church discipline 
Author Message

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Negative Infallibility of Church discipline
I'm having a discussion on "Suscipe Domine" forums [ http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/inde ... g82152#new ] with a young man: Land of Confusion (L.O.C.); who has a problem understanding the concept of "negative infallibility", with regards to the discipline of the Church. He raised a series of objections to an article I posted from Fr. Augustine Goupil S.J. On the reasons why the Church is infallible in her discipline: here is my translation of the part of the page that is relevant to the discussion:
Quote:
R. P. AUGUSTE-ALEXIS GOUPIL, S.J.
LA RÈGLE DE LA FOI pg. 22: http://catholicapedia.net/Documents/cah ... oi_48p.pdf

The Proximate Rule of Faith
Infallibility of Church Discipline:

37.- A. The Church is infallible in Her discipline.
What is an example of a disciplinary law? They are not Divine ordinances, as for example the indissolubility of Holy Matrimony; rather ecclesiastical laws enacted by the authority of the Church; for example: The celibacy of the Clergy; the keeping of Sunday as a Holy Day. These laws are general laws as opposed to laws restricted to a particular country or province, as for example the keeping of certain feasts as holy days of obligation; rather, general or universal laws for the whole Church or at least for a branch of the Church; therefore the Code of Canon Law for the Latin rite is considered a universal law.
It is certain that the Church has the same authority to not only enact laws, but also to reform or abrogate these same laws; therefore all of Her laws can be modified.
How does a disciplinary law participate in a dogmatic truth? A law, in itself, strictly speaking, is neither true nor false; it does not expressly affirm or deny anything; it orders or prohibits us from doing something. Therefore, it does not fall under a definition of the Magisterium; rather it belongs to the Church’s power of jurisdiction. Nonetheless, a disciplinary decree includes a dogmatic decree. For when the Church issues a law, She affirms that the law is just, which implies two conditions: a) That this law is in conformity with faith and morals of the Divine Law; consequently any doctrine touching faith or morals is included in that Ecclesiastical law, this law is infallibly true. Therefore if the Church commands that prayers should be offered for the departed; one can conclude infallibly that the prayers of the living are useful for the souls in Purgatory.
b) In addition, that the above mentioned just law tends towards the good of the society. It is therefore impossible that a universal law of the Church should be harmful to the Christian society. We do not pretend to affirm that an ecclesiastical law which is generally good, cannot cause some particular inconveniences; we do however affirm that the common good is procured through this law, and that it offers more advantages than inconveniences.
We do not state that a Church law is the very best in each case, nor the most opportune, that is why it is permissible to respectfully seek its modification or even abrogation; but we affirm that as such, it is useful for the good of souls.
Finally, its possible that a good law may result in causing harm to a particular individual who becomes guilty of infringing on the law; but this prejudice comes from the individuals malice, and not from the law itself, according to the words of St. Paul: “And I died. And the commandment that was ordained to life, the same was found to be unto death to me.” (Rom. 7.10).
Proofs:
From Sacred Scripture in the acts of the Apostles XV, 28, the Apostles issued a disciplinary law and they declared that it emanated from the Holy Ghost as well as themselves: “For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things.”
Ecclessiastical Documents:
The Council of Trent declares (Denzinger-954 Can. 7.): “ If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.’’
St. Thomas in the Summa responds to the arguments against the rites of the Mass by affirming that [IIIa q.LXXXIII, 5, sed contra]: On the contrary, The custom of the Church stands for these things: and the Church cannot err, since she is taught by the Holy Ghost.
Theological Reason: In the Church, the power of the Magisterium and that of government cannot be separated; one implies the other; it is the same individuals who teach and govern, and they teach because they govern (see n. 7). Thus the very same universal disciplinary law emmanates from the supreme power of jurisdiction which is infallible. As a consequence, a practical decree that would incluye a profession of error would be the equivalent of an erroneous doctrinal decree, which is impossible.
Note.
One can easily see that the present question belongs to the mixed object of the Magisterium. In effect, the fact that a disciplinary law is in concordance with the Divine rule of faith and morals, has a relation to the principal object (a revealed truth); that this same law is useful to the common good, is a question that belongs to the secondary object (a dogmatic fact). These together constitute the mixed object.

To me its all very clear; and I don't intend to refute his objections point by point (especially since I don't understand what he is saying in half of them; ha!). Most of the objections appear to be the result of his misunderstanding the concept of "negative infallibility"; he cannot seem to reconcile how discipline can be "infallible" and at the same time "mutable". So my question is this: Is there any other source that you know of that can explain the concept of negative infallibility as regards to Church discipline more in depth?
I appreciate any help you can give me.
Mike

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:50 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Negative Infallibility of Church discipline
I suspect that his "problem" is with the words "negative infallibility". Perhaps a different way of interpreting those particular words would help. (?)

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:54 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Negative Infallibility of Church discipline
Michael Wilson wrote:
Land of Confusion (L.O.C.)

Apt!

Michael Wilson wrote:
So my question is this: Is there any other source that you know of that can explain the concept of negative infallibility as regards to Church discipline more in depth?

I think your source is admirably clear and thorough, Mike, and you've done everybody a service in translating it.

Michael Wilson wrote:
Most of the objections appear to be the result of his misunderstanding the concept of "negative infallibility"; he cannot seem to reconcile how discipline can be "infallible" and at the same time "mutable".


All infallibility is "negative" of course, in that it is by its very nature purely the inability to err, quite different from, say, inspiration. I had a quick look at your Confused friend's comments and it's clear that he hasn't thought about the subject at all yet, so I'd be inclined to tell him to think about it for a week and then come back and ask his questions.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:53 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Negative Infallibility of Church discipline
One more thought: Discipline changes, doctrine doesn't. The Church's infallibility in discipline is therefore her infallibility in whatever doctrine is implied by the discipline.

In essence, this is really no different from the true development of dogma, in which the textual dress of a doctrinal truth changes, while the truth itself remains exactly the same. The Filioque was added to the Creed, but the truth that the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son was always true, always believed by the Church and always taught by her. The text changed, and the truth was brought out with more clarity and force, but the truth believed and taught did not change.

Likewise the truth that the bread is changed into the Body of Our Lord. Not replaced, not added to, but changed into Our Lord's Body. The scholastics developed the word "transubstantiation" to express this truth, and the Church has adopted it in her dogmatic decrees, but it didn't change what had been believed and taught from the beginning.

So, the Church's laws regarding the celibacy of the clergy imply several doctrinal truths. One, that it is good that clerics are celibate. Two, that it is not absolutely necessary that clerics are celibate. Three, that the Church has the power to make such laws as she has made about this matter. The Church's infallibility assures us that she could never, for example, make a law which enjoined marriage on all clerics. This would be contrary to divine revelation, and therefore no such law will ever be attempted by the Church. That is what her infallibility in disciplinary matters ensures. For the same reason, looking to the past we can take instruction from what the Church has done: if she has made a law enjoining celibacy on the clergy, then we know with infallible certitude that it is good for clergy to be celibate. This is why Goupil treats of this infallibility in discipline under the head, "Proximate rule of faith". The Church's laws teach us (in an indirect, but clear, manner) the faith.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: Negative Infallibility of Church discipline
John,
Thank you for your comments, they are a big help. I will use them and incorporate them in my response to LOC.

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:46 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: Negative Infallibility of Church discipline
John,
I'm going to post my response to LOC and his reply as well as that of another poster who joined the discussion:
I stated:
Quote:
LOC,
my apologies for taking so long to respond to your last post. I think the key issues that you are having a problem with are twofold: 1. What is the extent of the infallibility claimed by the Church for Her disciplinary laws and 2. Can laws that are changed or modified also be infallible in any way?
Here I will address some of the objections that you raised in your last post:

Quote:
LOC stated:
Ok, but how can something be infallibly true and yet not infallibly true? The East does not have clerical celibacy so if this is infallible can you have 2 contradictory positions be infallible (celibacy and non-celibacy)? The Church has not said this. If clerical celibacy is not wrong, how can it be right concurrently? This denies history as well. Can infallibility then be a mutable thing?

My reply:
This is not quite accurate: The East does practice clerical celibacy; but it also allows married men to be ordained. There is no contradiction here; the doctrinal basis of the law is that it is not essential to the clerical state to be celibate, yet it is more advantageous. A contradiction would be if the East would prohibit clerical celibacy or only ordain married men.

Quote:
LOC stated:
Can something be infallible and modified and change because it is not opportune? He says so later on. I think the argument right there dismisses the article as a post hoc fallacy to be honest.

My reply:
The way it is explained by the Popes is that the Church is protected from promulgating bad laws [Per Pius VI and Gregory XVI]; but a law can be good during some time and yet the Church may decide that it needs to be modified or abrogated because the conditions under which it was enacted have changed; or that an existing law can be modified to make it better; for example the laws of fasting also of the frequency and of the age of receiving Communion. As Fr. Goupil explains the doctrine of the Church on which the laws are based doesn’t change; but the concrete application of discipline based on those laws can.


Quote:
LOC stated:
It does not seem, therefore, that the Church needs any special privilege of infallibility to prevent her from enacting laws contradictory of her doctrine.

My reply:
It does not seem to you; but it does appear to be the common teaching of both the Popes and theologians before Vatican II. Since the opinion of those who claimed that the laws of the Church could even become "useless or even burdensome" was condemned.

Quote:
LOC stated:
To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility,

My reply:
I have not read that any Pope or theologian claims a “positive” infallibility for Church laws. The fact that Church laws cannot be harmful to souls does not mean that they are necessarily the best laws possible; which then would imply “positive” infallibility.

Quote:
LOC Stated:
.. the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform.

My reply:
The Church simply cannot give us harmful, useless, burdensome laws; neither can she give us laws that would violate moral or doctrinal teaching or lead souls to perdition.
The abrogation and adaption of Church laws to meet the changing conditions of life, is not an argument against the good of those laws.
I hope that the foregoing will clear up some of the difficulties you are encountering.
I will look forward to your reply.

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:00 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: Negative Infallibility of Church discipline
Here is LOC's reply:
Quote:
from: Michael Wilson on November 24, 2013, 10:39:10 AM

LOC,
my apologies for taking so long to respond to your last post.


Hey Michael,
No problem or worries about the delay! I appreciate your comments. Now I wrote something more substantive but I got timed out and lost my full reply.

Quote:
Michael:
This is not quite accurate: The East does practice clerical celibacy; but it also allows married men to be ordained. There is no contradiction here; the doctrinal basis of the law is that it is not essential to the clerical state to be celibate, yet it is more advantageous. A contradiction would be if the East would prohibit clerical celibacy or only ordain married men.



To be a contradiction all you need is 2 terms "is" and "is not". Celibacy is the act of purity from sensuality. Non-celibacy is not the act of purity from sensuality. They are contradictions. If one is celibate they cannot be non-celibate as well. To say that celibacy is an infallible law and so is non-celibacy also infallible you have contradictory infallibility. Here's the crux of your argument that I believe is weakest.

Aristotle says of contradictions: "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

As far as the East, you are correct insofar as I did not properly articulate my position but it does not negate the argument.

Where is the principle of non-contradiction of infallibility since the Church permits both concurrently and why not view it as a non-infallible discipline as that makes sense?

Quote:
Michael:
...or that an existing law can be modified to make it better; for example the laws of fasting also of the frequency and of the age of receiving Communion. As Fr. Goupil explains the doctrine of the Church on which the laws are based doesn’t change; but the concrete application of discipline based on those laws can.




If a law can be changed and is mutable that makes the law positive law which takes into account times and conditions. While the Church has prerogative over positive law, and the laws are means of piety, I have a hard time understanding "positive infallibility" since the argument is new mutable laws are infallible. I thought infallibility is a negative power of protection against error not what can be "new".

Again, such a belief the Church can create infallible new law is not found in the patrimony of Catholicism, it's only in the last millennium without a historical basis.

Quote:
Michael
It does not seem to you; but it does appear to be the common teaching of both the Popes and theologians before Vatican II. Since the opinion of those who claimed that the laws of the Church could even become "useless or even burdensome" was condemned.



The condemnations have nothing to do with infallibility. You are extending a conclusion beyond the premises. So it's not just me that it "seems" this way, but theologians who also agree with my position. You seem, and I could be wrong, to equate useless & burdensome to infallible, which are not the same things except my extension of ultramontanist theologians. Sorry ultramontanist theologians are not the basis of my theology, nor are they binding in their view.

Actually the concrete situations of infallibility are not defined by the Church except by that of Vatican I's definition and theologians do disagree as to what concretely is infallible after those definitions both historically and post Vatican I. I find the Catholic Encyclopedia to be pretty unbiased in their article on infallibility.

Quote:
Michael
The Church simply cannot give us harmful, useless, burdensome laws; neither can she give us laws that would violate moral or doctrinal teaching or lead souls to perdition.



May I understand the statement better. If the laws are "inconveniences" based on circumstances the Church has the right to abrogate the law, but it is somehow not burdensome based on the circumstances as well?

Again, I don't believe the Church gives harmful and useless laws, but I don't think they are then infallible either. While a theologian can be cited, the Church has not declared it so to the best of my knowledge. I believe the arguments of what concretely is infallible beyond faith and morals is contested therefore there is genuine Catholic liberty of thought in the matter especially in light of where we are as a Church in terms of those faith and morals which must be upheld.

The argument is akin to Aquinas's view on canonizations. He said it is to be piously believed that canonizations are infallible. A pious belief is not binding on conscience, nor would it be infallible.

I wish you well friend! Pray for both of us as I pray for you!

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:10 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: Negative Infallibility of Church discipline
Here is a post by TonyW. replying to LOC:
Quote:
LOC:
To be a contradiction all you need is 2 terms "is" and "is not". Celibacy is the act of purity from sensuality. Non-celibacy is not the act of purity from sensuality. They are contradictions. If one is celibate they cannot be non-celibate as well. To say that celibacy is an infallible law and so is non-celibacy also infallible you have contradictory infallibility. Here's the crux of your argument that I believe is weakest.

Aristotle says of contradictions: "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."



LOC, I gather from reading your comments that this is your principal argument against the claim that discipline is a secondary object of infallibility. Here is where I think you go wrong: you fail to distinguish between two distinct things, namely, propositions with declarative content and propositions with imperative content and the modes in which these two kinds of proposition can be said to be true or false.

Let me explain myself by addressing the ways in which declarative statements and imperative commands can be said to be true, whilst leaving to one side the issue of infallibility. The following is, as you no doubt know, a statement in the declarative mood:

a) The moon is made of green cheese.

For Aristotle and others, the truth or falsity of a) is explained by its conformity or non-conformity to a certain state of affairs, namely, the way the world is or is not. So a) is false because the world is not such-and-such a way, that is, the moon is not made of green cheese. As you rightly point out, we cannot simultaneously assert that something both is and is not in the same respect and at the same time. So one cannot possible assert a) and at the same time assert that b) 'The moon is not made of green cheese'. Either a) or b) must be false. So far this should be fairly uncontroversial.

Consider the following, however:

c) Drivers must drive on the left hand side of the road.

c) is a command, not a declarative statement. As such, its truth or falsity is not explained by its conformity or non-conformity with a certain state of affairs. There is no state of affairs which corresponds to 'Drivers must drive on the left hand side of the road', in the way that there is a state of affairs which corresponds to the declarative statement 'The moon is not made of green cheese' - i.e., the state of the moon not being made of green cheese. Commands are only true in an analogous sense; their truth or falsity is grounded in or explained by their conformity to certain truths expressed in declarative statements. Therefore, we might say that c) is true (alternatively, we could speak of the rightness or wrongness of commands) because it is true that human life is valuable, and that we need laws to govern the safe operation of vehicles (both declarative statements).

What is the point of all this? The following: the disciplinary laws of the Church are commands not declarative statements; they are not statements of the form 'x is y' or 'x is not y'. Therefore, they do not form contradictions in the manner you suppose. If the prince of Urbania decrees that everyone in Urbania must drive on the left, and the prince or Ruritania decrees that everyone in Ruritainia must drive on the right for the public good, we then have two different commands, not a contradiction. If someone said that only one could be true, then the correct response would just be to say that that person was confused. We would only have a contradiction if someone said, for instance, 'All men must do x' and, at the same time, 'All men must not do x'. So I can see no contradiction in saying, 'All priests of the Western Church must be celibate' and, at the same time, 'Some priests of the Eastern Church need not be celibate'. All we have here are two different commands for two different parts of the Church, not a contradiction. The reason you suppose there to be a contradiction here, I think, is that you imagine Church discipline to be a collection of dogmas in the declarative mood - such as 'Christ is the second person of the trinity' - which can be negated by the addition of 'is not', but, as I have argued, this is not the case.

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:12 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: Negative Infallibility of Church discipline
Quote:
from: TonyW. on Today at 04:01:10 PM

LOC, I gather from reading your comments that this is your principal argument against the claim that discipline is a secondary object of infallibility.


LOC replies:

Actually it is far more simple than that... the Church has not said so only ultramontanist theologians and there is no precedent for the 1000+ years. The Church cannot "grow" infallibility through humanistic reasoning otherwise what is Divine is then human. This is the exact argument of St. Bernard de Clairvaux against Abelard:

"Human ingenuity takes possession of everything, leaving nothing to faith. It confronts what is above and beyond it, scrutinizes what is superior to it, bursts into the world of God, alters rather than illumines the mysteries of faith; it does not open what is closed and sealed but rather uproots it, and what it does not find viable in itself it considers as nothing and refuses to believe in it" (Epistola CLXXXVIII,1: PL 182, 1, 353)

What was one of the principle effects of such thinking? Never ending heresy according to St. Bernard which would cause more harm than help, as such over theologizing would lead to too many definitions and ending heresy. His disputation against Abelard is probably the most apropos debate for today.

Was he right? I believe he was and history has vindicated his argument more than dispelled it.

So to answer your question, it is not just that there are problems when looking at discipline logically, but what is required by faith? Faith requires I believe in a perpetual hierarchy, not in a mental construct of the hierarchy I think exists how I think it does. This then is the task of theology which is faith seeking understanding, not understanding seeking faith. We walk by faith, not by sight, so my goal then is to take what I can see to make it agree with what I cannot see as Revelation comes before reasoning and my reason should be at the service of faith and not go past those boundries.

Quote:
TonyW.
Consider the following, however:

c) Drivers must drive on the left hand side of the road.

c) ...Commands are only true in an analogous sense; their truth or falsity is grounded in or explained by their conformity to certain truths expressed in declarative statements. Therefore, we might say that c) is true (alternatively, we could speak of the rightness or wrongness of commands) because it is true that human life is valuable, and that we need laws to govern the safe operation of vehicles (both declarative statements).



I agree with everything you said that I quoted, that is why I have stated that the Church has that prerogative to do so in case of discipline and both positions (celibacy and non-celibacy) are correct. I agree with your statement 100% + tax.

Quote:
TonyW.
What is the point of all this? The following: the disciplinary laws of the Church are commands not declarative statements; they are not statements of the form 'x is y' or 'x is not y'.



Correct again, commands which are based circumstance are not declarative statements, but the moment you make it an infallible statement one MUST believe there has to be syllogistic consistency.

You see I have no problem with your statements, and I know them well, I disagree with conclusion how you can make something infallible which is required by adherence beyond piety into something greater than that. When one states "X is infallible" then it is a declaration, a statement beyond piety and religious submission, and no longer simply an imperative command. I didn't not change the terms of the debate by making something infallible.

Your example of driving lanes in Urbania is perfect to illustrate this and I appreciate it as it illustrates my point. Can we say the decree is imperative and true for the good of society? Absolutely! (Here we agree)

Can we then say it is infallible to say to drive on a side of the road because it is good for society? These are 2 different questions between what is good and what is infallible. Something can be good and infallible, but it does not require that prudential goodness is infallible. That's a extension beyond the premises.

"A" can be good, and not good at the same time (commands which are neither true or false based on circumstance and not contradictory, such as celibacy and again here we agree)

but it changes when you state...

"A" is infallible... at that point you make infallibility a premise one must adhere & assent to and not a prudential command

How can prudence of things not revealed be infallible?

To make my point more clear can you think of anything which falls under infallibility from Vatican I's definition where contraries or contradictions are possible? How can this be universally the case, yet it cannot be done for ultramontanist theology? At that point I argue you run into the statement of St. Bernard who shows the danger and also not found in the 1st millennium in the Church.

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:15 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 am
Posts: 63
Location: St. Marys, Kansas
New post Re: Negative Infallibility of Church discipline
In my view, LOC has backed himself into his current position because he recognizes the strenth of the Sed argument:
Major: The Church is infallible in Her disciplinary laws.
Minor: But the Conciliar Popes have promulgated evil, useless and harmful disciplinary laws.
Conclusion: Therefore the Conciliar Popes are not Popes.
The only two alternatives left open 1: To deny that the new Code of Canon law contains bad laws or 2. To deny the infallibility of the disciplinary laws, by reducing this doctrine to an opinion of "ultra-montanist" theologians.
LOC has opted for "door #2".
Does anyone else agree with my view?

_________________
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.


Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:19 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:29 am
Posts: 6
New post Re: Negative Infallibility of Church discipline
Yes indeed, Michael. You, INPEFESS, Tony, Robert and I have sufficiently demonstrated the errors of his argument and it seems he'll do exactly what INP and I predicted in another thread, throw away traditional and true ecclesiology so as to avoid the sede position. This position, in my opinion, is becoming more dangerous then the councilar church itself due to it's anti-traditional nature towards the teaching authority of the Church and it's attitude towards the Papal office.

_________________
"Not to oppose erroneous Doctrine is to approve of it, and not to defend at all true Doctrine is to suppress it." Innocent III


Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:47 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.