From Chicago, Great conversation. I really appreciate Father Weinandy. I really like your interview style and your great guests in these perplexing times in the church and in the world
Do you make a distinction between the “development of doctrine” vs the “development of dogma”? Fr Henri de Lubac seems to have gotten resistance on this issue as he discussed in his book “Theology in History”.
"he rules by Motu Proprios and assuming more and more power" - what more and more power is there to assume beyond the fullness of power he already has by virtue of his full supreme ordinary and universal jurisdiction, and the fact that he alone can always act alone unhindered, unlike any other Christian or group of Christians (up to and including ecumenical councils) that depend on his will and confirmation, and that must always operate "with and under Peter?"
I think what Pope Francis is proving is that the question of when, where and how this authority is to be used needs to be clarified. All of the teaching on Petrine authority can be summed up by saying 'the buck has to stop with someone', whether it is a dispute that remains unresolved between Patriarchs or a matter of teaching. Without 'full', 'ordinary' and 'universal' jurisdiction, Peter wouldn't be able to fulfil this role, hence the teaching of Vatican 1. However, what has happened in the last 150 years is that the doctrine has been interpretated as the buck *starting* with the Pope! As Newman said, the genius of the Roman Church is that no doctrinal development ever began. Its universal role was a negative one, in which the Pope would essentially adjudicate. It was never his role to propose doctrine, as Vatican 1 also makes clear.
@@iwattguitar How it's to be exercised is up to the reigning pope alone. No one judges the first see - not Tom, not iwattguitar, not Cardinal Newman, or anyone else. The pope is always free to exercise his jurisdiction unhindered, and he is the supreme judge of what constitutes a legitimate and necessary exercise of his own plenitudo potestatis. Remember, attempting to appeal a papal decision even to an ecumenical council is a canonical delict.
A great and informative interview defending the Truth. I was hoping that the conversation would address Vatican 2 error in implying that the Old Covenant was still valid to produce a kind of semi-salvation in the Christian era. That statement justified the move to change the ambiguous Good Friday prayer on salvation. That in turn encouraged the prevalent belief today that Jews can be saved by simply following the Old Covenant and the other anti-Christian religions could be saved by following their conscience in following their false religions. This was demonstrated in B. Baron's interview was Shapiro where the good bishop told Shapiro that he could be saved by following the dead Old covenant. This error in V2 causes great harm by giving false hope to the Jewish people the illusion that they can be saved by following a dead Old Covenat.
I looked at the channel's page, and the purpose appears to be to defend vatican 2. Calling anything from it an error might be at odds with that purpose.
![Who Wrote a Short Story That Seriously Disturbed a Teacher? | Dirty Laundry x Smosh [Full Episode]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bvHAy_rKoEI/mqdefault.jpg)
Wonderful. Thank you both!
The Apostle Paul plainly states that those who engage in this behavior are reprobate. See Romans 1:18-32. And these are leaders?
From Chicago, Great conversation. I really appreciate Father Weinandy. I really like your interview style and your great guests in these perplexing times in the church and in the world
Do you make a distinction between the “development of doctrine” vs the “development of dogma”? Fr Henri de Lubac seems to have gotten resistance on this issue as he discussed in his book “Theology in History”.
Which Cardinal?
"he rules by Motu Proprios and assuming more and more power" - what more and more power is there to assume beyond the fullness of power he already has by virtue of his full supreme ordinary and universal jurisdiction, and the fact that he alone can always act alone unhindered, unlike any other Christian or group of Christians (up to and including ecumenical councils) that depend on his will and confirmation, and that must always operate "with and under Peter?"
I think what Pope Francis is proving is that the question of when, where and how this authority is to be used needs to be clarified. All of the teaching on Petrine authority can be summed up by saying 'the buck has to stop with someone', whether it is a dispute that remains unresolved between Patriarchs or a matter of teaching. Without 'full', 'ordinary' and 'universal' jurisdiction, Peter wouldn't be able to fulfil this role, hence the teaching of Vatican 1. However, what has happened in the last 150 years is that the doctrine has been interpretated as the buck *starting* with the Pope! As Newman said, the genius of the Roman Church is that no doctrinal development ever began. Its universal role was a negative one, in which the Pope would essentially adjudicate. It was never his role to propose doctrine, as Vatican 1 also makes clear.
@@iwattguitar How it's to be exercised is up to the reigning pope alone. No one judges the first see - not Tom, not iwattguitar, not Cardinal Newman, or anyone else. The pope is always free to exercise his jurisdiction unhindered, and he is the supreme judge of what constitutes a legitimate and necessary exercise of his own plenitudo potestatis. Remember, attempting to appeal a papal decision even to an ecumenical council is a canonical delict.
A great and informative interview defending the Truth. I was hoping that the conversation would address Vatican 2 error in implying that the Old Covenant was still valid to produce a kind of semi-salvation in the Christian era. That statement justified the move to change the ambiguous Good Friday prayer on salvation. That in turn encouraged the prevalent belief today that Jews can be saved by simply following the Old Covenant and the other anti-Christian religions could be saved by following their conscience in following their false religions. This was demonstrated in B. Baron's interview was Shapiro where the good bishop told Shapiro that he could be saved by following the dead Old covenant. This error in V2 causes great harm by giving false hope to the Jewish people the illusion that they can be saved by following a dead Old Covenat.
I looked at the channel's page, and the purpose appears to be to defend vatican 2. Calling anything from it an error might be at odds with that purpose.
Listening from 30 min in I had chills. I mean can feel the darkness around this papacy. Sad. 🙏🙏🙏