|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 16, 2018 15:21:16 GMT -5
Ok, you're getting too excited in this simple discussion. I came here to discuss, not to argue. Not everything is an attack on you. No one is slapping fish down and accusing you of anything. No one is insulting you. No one is attacking you. No one is condescending to you. No one is attacking your person. A little bit less defensiveness goes a long way. Until then, I'm out. Cmon...this is me...this is how I roll you dont have to leave. Im just saying there is a way of knowing things. Im not excited...but you did say my position was modernist. Everybody is so thin skinned!
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 19:51:21 GMT -5
Ok, you're getting too excited in this simple discussion. I came here to discuss, not to argue. Not everything is an attack on you. No one is slapping fish down and accusing you of anything. No one is insulting you. No one is attacking you. No one is condescending to you. No one is attacking your person. A little bit less defensiveness goes a long way. Until then, I'm out. Cmon...this is me...this is how I roll you dont have to leave. Im just saying there is a way of knowing things. Im not excited...but you did say my position was modernist. Everybody is so thin skinned! Thin skinned is getting defensive about everything I say. Personalism is a modernist error = slamming the fish down on the table and shouting accusations that you are a Modernist. That is not even close to what happened. *sigh* = insulted by condescension. That is a logic fallacy = ad hominem (attacking you as a person). That's at all the same thing. Here is my opinion = giving my opinion without being asked. This is my thread, but I am not allowed to state my opinion of what you are saying. Pointing out errors of reason = irritating. Etc. It seems this thread is getting you very high strung, to the point where a simple statement that personalism is a modernist error is interpolated as shouting accusations of you as a Modernist. It is clear we can't discuss this without taking everything personally. So until we can do that, there's no use continuing. I come here to exchange ideas with like minded people, not people foaming at the mouth to play the victim everytime someone says "I disagree."
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 16, 2018 20:06:17 GMT -5
Thats hardly whats going on. And I asked for a Catholic source to back up your statement that Jesus doesnt reveal things to his sheep personally. And you assert a term Ive never heard of...personalism? Is that even a thing?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 21:37:24 GMT -5
Thats hardly whats going on. And I asked for a Catholic source to back up your statement that Jesus doesnt reveal things to his sheep personally. And you assert a term Ive never heard of...personalism? Is that even a thing? But see, that's the problem. Instead of first assuming there's a possibility you don't know something and asking what I mean, you jump to emotional conclusions that you're being personally attacked. All I ask is that this discussion receive benefit of doubt. Can we do that?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 21:38:59 GMT -5
"Personalism: a system of thought that maintains the primacy of the human or divine person on the basis that reality has meaning only through the conscious mind."
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 21:59:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 17, 2018 7:21:12 GMT -5
Thats fair thank you. But I described something different than personalism and definitely wasnt promoting agnosticism. And your source rather condemns your assertion that Jesus doesnt reveal ANYTHING to his sheep personally. Your posy merely points out that we cant assert that ONLY personal knowledge from God is authoratative. Where is your definition of "personalism" from? Its in quotes.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 17, 2018 7:23:10 GMT -5
Btw I would ask you how that definition has anything to do with what I was explaining?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 13:33:40 GMT -5
From the same encyclical:
8. But we have not yet come to the end of their philosophy, or, to speak more accurately, their folly. For Modernism finds in this sentiment not faith only, but with and in faith, as they understand it, revelation, they say, abides. For what more can one require for revelation? Is not that religious sentiment which is perceptible in the consciousness revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is not God Himself, as He manifests Himself to the soul, indistinctly it is true, in this same religious sense, revelation? And they add: Since God is both the object and the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and from God; that is, God is both the revealer and the revealed.
Hence, Venerable Brethren, springs that ridiculous proposition of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. Hence it is that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. Hence the law, according to which religious consciousness is given as the universal rule, to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and to which all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in its teaching capacity, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred liturgy or discipline.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 13:34:43 GMT -5
Thats fair thank you. But I described something different than personalism and definitely wasnt promoting agnosticism. And your source rather condemns your assertion that Jesus doesnt reveal ANYTHING to his sheep personally. Your posy merely points out that we cant assert that ONLY personal knowledge from God is authoratative. Where is your definition of "personalism" from? Its in quotes. I never said that. I explicitly said the contrary.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 13:39:30 GMT -5
I stated already that the "motives of credibility" prompt our intellect to believe, first. Grace (the movement of God's will within us) bridges the gap between what is rational to believe and what we actually will to believe. It starts with external revelation; it ends with internal assent to the credibility of that external revelation.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 18, 2018 13:52:37 GMT -5
Thats fair thank you. But I described something different than personalism and definitely wasnt promoting agnosticism. And your source rather condemns your assertion that Jesus doesnt reveal ANYTHING to his sheep personally. Your posy merely points out that we cant assert that ONLY personal knowledge from God is authoratative. Where is your definition of "personalism" from? Its in quotes. I never said that. I explicitly said the contrary. Heres your exact quote: "Christ didn't privately and personally reveal anything to us." Read more: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1416/resolving-sedevacantist-paradox?page=4#ixzz57UHFSrGi
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 18, 2018 13:58:47 GMT -5
"Personalism: a system of thought that maintains the primacy of the human or divine person on the basis that reality has meaning only through the conscious mind." what is the source of this definition?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 14:00:13 GMT -5
Personalism is the umbrella philosophy that encompasses the specific modernist foundational philosophy of phenomenology, with which St. Pius says all modernism begins. Phenomenology proposes that all reality is described by personal experience, called "phenomenon." In the theological sphere, the modernists make this the foundation of faith and even divine revelation itself. Revelation is internal, in this modernist system, so the truths of revelation spring from within our own longing for the divine, and external revelation is simply defined as the profession of one's own internal revelation. This is condemned by St. Pius X as a tenet of Modernism. It's how they are able to change dogma without seeing contradiction: because every dogma is simply the external profession of what was internally revealed to this or that person at one time. But while what was revealed to one person was true at the time for them, what is revealed to another at a different time is true for him at the time it is revealed. The spirit breathes withsoever it will, as they say. This is an error into itself, but if it is advanced even further to its extreme conclusion, it is held that God is the development of collective human consciousness in the world. God IS the collective development of the internal, private revelation of the human race, ever changing and evolving until man literally becomes one with God. Enter Tielhard de Chardin.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 14:03:54 GMT -5
He didn't. Revelation was to the Apostles and ended with St. John's Apocalypse. The Church teaches that that was the end of Christ's revelation to mankind. We receive grace by which we internally accept this external revelation, but the revelation isn't personally given to us in some cloud-like third heaven; it was given to the Apostles, and we simply believe what they have passed down: the deposit of faith they preached to the whole world--some by seeing, some by hearing. God then works within us interiorly by which He moves us to assent and believe with Faith the truths we have heard with our ears or read with our eyes.
|
|