“Sorry, that was from MM and i forgot to put in italics, but she was not saying, nor do I, that the CFs were right about the body.”
So we are in agreement here.
“But Rome infers that in requiring “unanimous consent of the fathers” in interpreting holy Scripture, (V 1, Ses. 3) and i think many Roman Catholics sometimes carelessly invoke them for support.”
Unanimous consent is a bit of a special term. It means that the Church has come to an agreement on a specific teaching. It does not mean that each and every one of the magisterium is necessarily correct. In unity they are, but as individuals, no.
This is why we have to be careful to distinguish between a teaching that is espoused by a Church Father and contrary to what the Church teaches. Consensus forms from the body of the magisterium, not the individuals.
“Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy”
Petrine primacy. This is not quite true. The Orthodox, to my understanding do not contest Petrine primacy, but rather, affirm that he is first among equals. The major issues is what constitutes Petrine primacy, ie, jurisdiction. What does the Pope have specific authority over and the relationship between the Bishop of Rome and the others.
“What i said about the exceptional status of this proposition still holds, even if it does not necessarily exclude exceptions.”
Mary is an exception. Her case is unique, and I don’t believe it’s difficult to understand why this is the case. The annunciation happened only to her.
“I actually agree, faith with temperance is to govern, and as said, such is the more historical Protestant position.”
Yes, this more modern interpretation only dates back to the 30’s and has no justification prior. This to me was solid evidence in favor of the earlier understanding. All the reformers were in opposition to contraception. This is not a teaching that should be dividing us.
“But believing in PV does not exclude one from salvation, much less ensure it, and so the real issue is the authority behind it, as expressed before.”
No, and nor has it been infalliably affirmed. It’s just not as important an issue as the other three marian dogmas.
The basis for it goes back to Apostolic times, but it was confirmed at the Council of the Lateran in the 7th century.
Unanimous consent is a bit of a special term. It means that the Church has come to an agreement on a specific teaching.
UC is indeed a special term, and is referring to the premise that the “Fathers” were unanimous in interpretation of Scripture on some things, and thus the Holy Fathers, “are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals..” (POPE LEO XIII, PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html) and, therefore, it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to to the church or the unanimous consent of the Fathers. (V1, Ses. 3), and thus the required oath in the Tridentine Creed contained in the papal bull Iniunctum Nobis, “Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” (http://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/323/texts/trent.htm, http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html)
But which unanimity is not as in a papal conclave, but this “unanimous consent” of the Fathers came to be interpreted to mean unanimity even when there is dissent.
No, and nor has it been infalliably affirmed.
But it is defended as if it were infallible, while as there is no infallible list of what all church fathers consist of, or of all infallible pronouncements, not everything is clear as to what is infallible.
The basis for it goes back to Apostolic times, but it was confirmed at the Council of the Lateran in the 7th century.
By basis i was not referring to the assertion of one side of Tradition over another by a council, but ultimately to the real premise behind assurance of the veracity of the claims of Roman Catholicism will .
Which assurance, as said, does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural warrant (which source is disallowed as providing real certitude of Truth), though that may be invoked, but upon the premise that Rome is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined scope and subject-based formula (thus rendering her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible). And upon which premise she can define history and Scripture as supporting her, though she rarely infallibly defines texts of Scripture, and the reasons and arguments behind an infallible decree are not necessarily infallible themselves.