|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 24, 2016 11:31:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 24, 2016 12:12:47 GMT -5
You have no reason to be concerned about your position. This "sermon" is rubbish, and its foundations are sectarianism. There was once a good thread on Te Deum called, "When does Traditionalism become a sect." It is this type of junk theology that leads Catholics into a "traditionalist" sect. A new thread needs to be started here to discuss this ever growing problem among sedevacantists. These so called "anti-una cum" sedevacantists, are playing with schism. The root of their problem is ultimately liberalism, disguised as hard line Catholicism. More later.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 24, 2016 12:22:03 GMT -5
Im not sure I agree its rubbish. Please expound. His premise about the indefectability of the Church and where that defectability extends seem compelling to me.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 24, 2016 13:02:32 GMT -5
Im not sure I agree its rubbish. Please expound. His premise about the indefectability of the Church and where that defectability extends seem compelling to me. It's sophistry on his part, (and the others that say what he is saying), and I will explain why I make that assertion later.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jul 24, 2016 13:31:04 GMT -5
This is an inbred idea from a closed circle of traditionalism which considers any rivals to be inferior, non-Catholic, and objectively schismatic. The sermon was given by someone raised on the ideas of his instructors rather than a result of his own thinking or study. Parrotism anyone? It is ironic that the originators had to invent a new term, outside of any Catholic sources, to describe their opinion and then call anything contrary "opinionism."
I am not going to publicly examine your situation on here, Vox, but throwing your lot in with this position would probably ruin your life and that of your family if you were to take it to the same extreme as others have done. That may sound harsh but I wouldn't say it if I didn't mean it. There isn't much room for a middle-ground, either, and even that would have serious consequences for you.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 24, 2016 13:36:38 GMT -5
This is an inbred idea from a closed circle of traditionalism which considers any rivals to be inferior, non-Catholic, and objectively schismatic. The sermon was given by someone raised on the ideas of his instructors rather than a result of his own thinking or study. Parrotism anyone? It is ironic that the originators had to invent a new term, outside of any Catholic sources, to describe their opinion and then call anything contrary "opinionism." I am not going to publicly examine your situation on here, Vox, but throwing your lot in with this position would probably ruin your life and that of your family if you were to take it to the same extreme as others have done. That may sound harsh but I wouldn't say it if I didn't mean it. There isn't much room for a middle-ground, either, and even that would have serious consequences for you. well what is the position? That it is impossible for Francis to be Pope? Also Icouldnt or wouldnt hold it against anyone who doesnt hold the Sede position. I just dont see the weakness in his argument. Please show me the weakness...and also I dont plan on changing anything...I just have not found a way to hold Frank as a pope since he obviously isnt Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 24, 2016 13:49:42 GMT -5
This is an inbred idea from a closed circle of traditionalism which considers any rivals to be inferior, non-Catholic, and objectively schismatic. The sermon was given by someone raised on the ideas of his instructors rather than a result of his own thinking or study. Parrotism anyone? It is ironic that the originators had to invent a new term, outside of any Catholic sources, to describe their opinion and then call anything contrary "opinionism." I am not going to publicly examine your situation on here, Vox, but throwing your lot in with this position would probably ruin your life and that of your family if you were to take it to the same extreme as others have done. That may sound harsh but I wouldn't say it if I didn't mean it. There isn't much room for a middle-ground, either, and even that would have serious consequences for you. well what is the position? That it is impossible for Francis to be Pope? Also Icouldnt or wouldnt hold it against anyone who doesnt hold the Sede position. I just dont see the weakness in his argument. Please show me the weakness...and also I dont plan on changing anything...I just have not found a way to hold Frank as a pope since he obviously isnt Catholic. This is not about whether sedevacantism is true. We all agree on that. The so called "anti-opinionists" make their private judgement on the undeclared heretical papal claimants equivalent to an authoritative judgment. The direct logical conclusion that flows from their initial error leads them to conclude that those who go to masses "una cum" with the undeclared antipope are objectively sinning, as it is in their mind an objectively schismatic act.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Jul 24, 2016 14:46:58 GMT -5
...throwing your lot in with this position would probably ruin your life and that of your family if you were to take it to the same extreme as others have done. Aside from the una cum question, I thought the Vatican II apostasy had already ruined our lives. Humanly speaking, perhaps I should add, or perhaps not -- much of the ruin is spiritual. Dozens of ordinary Catholic things to do are now impossible, or at best are iffy and dangerous. I like what Cletus said (at another forum years ago) about it: He likes to joke about our situation, which I take not as flippancy but as trying to keep a light heart as an alternative to despair.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jul 24, 2016 17:40:11 GMT -5
Eric, I think that is a topic for a different thread. What I am referring to is the dangers of the position of those who coined the term "opinionism" because the application of the attached beliefs would be serious.
For example, if I were to hold the view in the sermon, apply it to my life, along with some of the other views espoused by that circle: I would have to go to confession for attending mass in various places and I would have to cease and desist attending mass at the various places that I sporadically attend. It might also mean that I cannot utilize the elderly priests that I go to for confession. It would likely mean that I could only use one of the priests on the "opinion about opinionsim" holder's approved list for baptisms, marriage, and extreme unction. If I were dying I might go without the last sacraments or have to arrange a flight and accommodations for an approved priest. (I know of the exceptions in danger of death but many do not, and this group is not likely to advise such). None of my children would be confirmed. The very nature of this position results in quarrels with fellow Catholics, associates, friends, and family. So it is likely that I would have no friends and that no one would speak to me, save the people I convince to join me under the "authority" of those whom I have placed my trust and allegiance. There's more but hopefully you get the point, it goes beyond opinionism, it's more of "follow me or die," to borrow another phrase.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 24, 2016 19:18:37 GMT -5
Before posting a more lengthy response to this "sermon,"* I would like to state that I had heard this talk already a couple of weeks ago and passed it on to a friend of mine that some on here may know, Mr. John Lane of Australia. He gave his thoughts on it to me after hearing it, and with his permission I am posting it below.
*(I do not concede that this talk is a sermon, hence the quotes, as priests must be authorized to preach a sermon. Hereafter all mention of it will refer to it as a talk. )
John Lane wrote:
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 24, 2016 20:27:46 GMT -5
yeah.. I still have the ability to start a provocative thread...good stuff! I wish Mr Lane would join us.
|
|
|
Post by michaelwilson on Jul 25, 2016 17:27:55 GMT -5
John is really great.
|
|
|
Post by orthopapist on Jul 31, 2016 1:45:13 GMT -5
I'll weigh in with a few points, I'm not going to listen to the sermon because I'm not sede anymore.
First, the SGG group is "opinionist" on the issue of sedeprivationism vs. sedevacantism, so if they're going to take a hardline approach on this, then either one or the other can go to heaven. Fr. Cekada the sedevacantist, Bp. Sanborn the sedeprivationist; Fr. Fliess is probably sedeprivationist, one of Sanborn's priests I think said they incline towards the sedepr theory. Additionally, then conclavists would be in schism and be in trouble from their viewpoint; or from our conclavist position in their hardline logic, we would consider them as culpable schismatics. So there are a few other "opinionist" issues being ignored here.
Along with that, I do want to maybe speak positively of taking a serious attitude, which they are doing. I believe people should basically presume they will be held to a strict Judgment by God and therefore should put in a lot of effort to do their best on things. There is probably not enough effort being put forth, I can only speak for my own need to do more and trying to charitably gauge what is being done judging by the effects produced and reasoning backwards to conclude that an increase of quality or quantity of the spiritual life is probably needed by all trads, probably some more than others. We need basically Olympic athletes in the spiritual life (just in time for the 2016 physical Olympic Games). I'll just ask rhetorically if you think you've seen anyone who you would describe as such (don't answer, just reflect on it). Also maybe some are not called to go to greater lengths, but each person is only called to do God's Will.
I also do not believe Francis can possibly be pope, however I may admit I think the sedev case probably still has holes in it that need patching to make it a fact (if it was really an unassailable fact, one might wonder why there are still so few sedev's/conclavists; it's not quite as obvious as 2+2=4, but it's not so much in the realm of uncertainty either).
Now, easing off the hardline, those who are deceived and in good faith may be considered material heretics/schismatics and as such can save their souls. God will judge their culpability justly based on the graces and knowledge received and how they corresponded with it. I think this gets lost in the hardline logic. The one extreme is tending towards universal salvation or that all will be saved; the opposite extreme is towards Jansenism or that only the fewest of few shall be saved. However we should for safety presume that only few will be saved and strive to be among that few, as this is a common theological opinion of the Fathers that only few will be saved. It's not that all aren't capable of being saved, but only that a minority will do what they need to do to be saved.
We have a pending book (?) along the lines of these topics which I was hoping would come out as I thought it would inspire piety and also give perspective. The heresy of feeneyism for instance is kind of a neo-Jansenist idea, that only the water baptized can be saved ... it ignores that the Church had no anxiety for the salvation of the unbaptized catechumens by not baptizing them immediately. However this was also not a "loophole" allowing indefinite delay of water baptism. In a similar way, I believe God will judge justly on the culpability involved with various people as per the effort they put forth to do God's Will, know the right thing to do, and what they did, and so on.
In short, a pious fear of God's Justice and hope of God's Mercy is needed. Only those who do penance and pray will be saved.
P.S. Notes: The heresy of Jansenism I think in the 1800s went the direction of emphasizing that few will be saved. Then the pendulum swung to the opposite heretical direction of the Vatican 2 confusion emphasizing universal salvation. I think maybe jansenism was created in order to set up for that reaction, but that's a side opinion.
Anyway, we found this in research by Fr. Lasance in the early 20th century, some interesting comments: Father Lasance From My Prayerbook, page 55ff: A certain man said to our blessed Savior as we read in the Gospel of St. Luke (13:23): “Lord, are there few that are saved?” Jesus simply replied: “Strive to enter by the narrow gate.” “It is a question,” says Father Walsh, S.J., in his admirable and consoling study, “The Comparative Number of the Saved and Lost,” “about where there is no authoritative decision of the Church, not unanimous opinion of her Fathers of theologians. “Many notably Suarez, hold – as Father Faber does – that the great majority of adult Catholics will be saved. Some, amongst whom we are glad to count the illustrious Dominican, Father Lacordaire, hold or incline to the opinion that the majority of mankind, including heathens and heretics, will be saved. “Peter Monsabre, O.P., Father Castelein, S.J., and Rev. Joseph Rickaby, S.J., 1 advocate this mildest opinion. Faher Rickaby says in his Conference, ‘The Extension of Salvation’: ‘As to what proportion of men die in sanctifying grace, and what proportion in mortal sin, nothing is revealed, nothing is of faith, and nothing is really known to theologians. If you ever find a theologian confidently consigning the mass of human souls to eternal flames, be sure he is venturing beyond the bounds of Christian faith and of theological science. You are quite free to disbelieve his word. I do not believe it myself. “’The rigor of older theologians culminated in Jansenism. To the Jansenist the elect were the few grapes left upon the vine after a careful vintage (Is. 24: 13). Since the extirpation of Jansenism, the pendulum of theological speculation has swung the other way, and theologians generally hope more of the mercy of God, or, at least, speak with less assurance of the range of His rigorous justice.’ “The reasons,” continues Fr. Walsh, “Which have induced me to think the mildest opinion, namely, that the majority – and I scarcely fear to add, the great majority – of mankind will be saved, are: First, because the study of God’s character urges, if not forces me to do so. Second, because this opinion appears to make most for His greater honor and glory, and for the merits of Christ. Third, because the belief in it is better calculated to make us love God and to serve Him the more from love. “Cardinal Bellarmine, in one of his expositions of the Psalms, writes: ‘David records God’s providence in regard tot eh beasts and the birds in order to let man see that he will never be forsaken by God in His providence. God, who so bounteously feeds beasts and ravens, will never desert those whoa re made to Hisown image and likeness.’ Is not such Our Lord’s reasoning and conclusions as we have them in His Sermon on the Mount: ‘Behold the birds of the air; for they neither sow nor do they reap, nor gather into barns, and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are you not of much more value than they?’ The most learned theologians lay down and prove the following proposition: That God really and sincerely wishes the salvation of all men, because He is the Creator of all men. In the words of St. Ambrose: ‘God wishes all whom He creates to be saved, would to God, O men, that you would not fly and hide yourselves from Him; but even if you do He seeks you, and does not wish you to perish.’ It is more probable that though many can and will fight God to the end and be lost, they will be fewer far than those whom He will tenderly, and in His own way, bring home to Himself. God is not only the Creator but the father of all men, without any exception. He has commanded us to address Him by this title: ‘Our Father, who art in heaven.’ All Christians do so: and a preacher, in his opening instructions would teach and exhort the untutored savage to believe in and speak to Him as such. “God is the Father of all men and eminently a perfect Father. We could not imagine such a father casting out, expelling from his home forever a child, until he had tried the proper means to keep him with himself – until the child deserts him, or, by wilful. Obstinate, persistent disobedience to his father’s will, necessitates his own expulsion. Such a father will do all her well can for the welfare of his children – do everything short of violence to enable his children to succeed in all that is for his own and their good. The dominant desire – wish – will or such a father must be to make his children happy; his dominat dread and horror, that one of them should be unhappy. “Our Lord tells us how easy and swift true repentance can be I the case of the publican – the notorious and typical sinner – who by making an act of sorrow for his sins, in seven words, went home to his house justified. God is far more ready and generous in forgiving the worst than men – even good men – are in forgiving each other, and bad would be be for the best of us if he were not. “By way of showing the effect which can be produced by the very thought of God Our Father, and belief in Him as such, I may give a fact told to me by the person concerned – now dead for some years. He fell into a state akin to despair about his salvation. A confessor, to whom he opened his mind, told him to go, take his Bible, and write out all the texts in which God calls Himself his Father. He did so, and was blessed with calm and peace before he had written twenty.” Fr. Nicholas Walsh, S.J. “Say to them: As I live, saith the Lord God: I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way, and live” (Ezechi 33:11).
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 31, 2016 6:57:23 GMT -5
Now why wouldnt you listen to the sermon?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 31, 2016 7:02:43 GMT -5
The context of broad salvation must be taken into account. In these dark times I cannot fathom how mortal sins are being expunged from invalid or dubious prelates and sacraments. As far as Trads needing improvement...of course we do...but to scold about it is like scolding a shipwreck survivor stranded on a barren island for not shaving and grooming themselves. Context OPape...Context!
|
|