What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

No, peer review?

Well, let's see...

First, the theologian must be in accord with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Unless the Pope overrides it, as he did with Natural Family Planning methods such as the Creighton which fully conflict with the principles expounded within Casti Connubi amongst other encyclicals.

The Orthodox Church draws from the same sacred tradition base as you do for much of its history and finds no reason to condemn contraception so that's out the window too.

The Orthodox, like the Protestant denominations, caved in to pressure from its membership. Why? No pope.

Then, there are the writings of the Early Church Fathers which must be considered.

Only when it suits you, the Catholic Church regularly rejects works from the Church fathers. Take Tertullian's, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4 and Jeromes Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 for instance. They hold practices such as new converts drinking milk and forbidding them to bathe for a week as sacred tradition. What about the awkward ones like telling people not to kneel during prayer? I don't think even the Catholic Church denies the historical prayer position from art and historical sources was stood upright with arms raised upwards.

I didn't observe any of these "sacred traditons which take on the weight of written law" according to Tertullian in the same work noted above when I last attended a Catholic Baptismal Mass.

Nor would it be necessary. What you fail to recognized apparently is that while the ECF's were thoroughly Catholic (and this is undeniable), they were not individually infallible. Consequently, when an ECF errs here and there, the Church was able to discern that error and choose the correct path.

Then, there are 2,000 years of theology from the Scholastics such as Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, etc which must be considered.

Again, only when it suits you. Thomas Aquinas held it was a glorious thing to slay a heretic before he could "infect the rest" according to the Summa (ST II-II, q. 64, a. 2) and yet I don't observe Catholics slaughtering anyone here who refuses to repent and convert to Catholicism. It's apparently their Christian duty to defend the word of God isn't it?

Nice example. Aquinas may have been right! The damage done by Martin Luther, for example, has been incalculable.

But no, we don't slaughter heretics anymore. Lucky you.  

Then, there are living theologians who may or may not agree with a given position.

What? You mean like when Leo XIII decided all by himself against the will of his theological advisors that Anglicans didn't have valid orders?[/quote]

Or that contraception would not be permitted by Paul VI. Yep. Jesus said to Peter, "Whatever you bind...". Awesome authority that.

Theologians are pointless in Catholicism, their opinion is worth fuck all unless they are the Pope.

I'm sure some have felt that way. But the pope does have a lot of theological advisors.

Then, there is the Magisterium of the Church of the Church which may be exercised through an Ecumenical Council called to settle a matter of dispute.

Which again the Pope can overrule on a whim as he has at several points in history.

Sure. He is the the head of the Church established by God Himself.

Finally, there is the Pope himself who may agree or disagree and pass judgment on the basis of his own authority.

So the Pope can peer review himself? "Hmm....I don't think I've got enough statues of half naked men on this balcony...Only fitting I have another".

No, the Pope is LIMITED in what he can and cannot teach by doctrine that has already been established and by the Holy Spirit. So, the review of a pope comes from PAST popes, so to speak.

Very fair. Why did the Catholic Church bother torturing a confession of heresy out of Savonarola when they could just ask him to "review" himself and ask if he's a heretic or not?

The story is more complicated that your one-liner suggests.

Oh wait...They did that with Honorius the heretic Pope. More than a little awkward don't you think?

Where did you get your information?

Pope Honorius (625-638) was condemned as a heretic by the sixth ecumenical council in 680 for having, in a letter to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, smoothed over heretical teaching and failed to give a dogmatic decision.

Much money has been spent by various Protestant bodies in the attempt to find even one formal papal definition which has been proved wrong or to find where one pope, attempting to teach infallibly, contradicted another or an ecumenical council. The records have been diligently searched by brilliant minds. Nothing has been overlooked; not one minor detail has been ignored. The result has been the complete vindication of the Church and the pope.

Articles about Pope Honorius

THE TRUTH ABOUT POPE HONORIUS
By ROBERT SPENCER
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1549265/posts

Guilty Only of Failure to Teach
The Case of Pope Honorius Doesn't Disprove Papal Infallibility
By Steve O'Reilly
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea5.asp