|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 23, 2016 18:48:39 GMT -5
yes there is a need...because you keep asserting there is some activity that is required of sedes...and some response required of non-sedes...but you cannot seem to describe it. At a certain point you will enter trollville if you dont.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 23, 2016 19:24:40 GMT -5
yes there is a need...because you keep asserting there is some activity that is required of sedes...and some response required of non-sedes...but you cannot seem to describe it. At a certain point you will enter trollville if you dont. I have already explained myself, so once again, I will express it in different words for you. The activity I am talking about in this thread is open for ALL Catholics to perform, and it is detailed in the quote from the booklet that was reprinted here. Father's sermon is a solid example of doing it. The hoped for response is that the truth be accepted. If it is not, you have already detailed many reasons why some people do not.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 23, 2016 19:47:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 23, 2016 20:08:08 GMT -5
From the book " Liberalism is a Sin": Fr. Fleiss' sermon is a good example of putting this in action.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 23, 2016 20:36:39 GMT -5
But the good Father does quite more than just bark...he asserts that those who dont accept the sede position after being told of the papal claimnants heresies are they themselves no longer Catholic. So Ill create a hypothetical...you are in a room with a spixxie...you lay out your best case for why a certain man or men cannot be popes...the spixxie listens but says Im sorry but I really cant accept what youve told me. Its just too fantastic...etc etc. Now what conclusion do YOU draw about this fellow Catholic?
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 24, 2016 2:32:17 GMT -5
I just listened to the sermon in full, and it's just as bad as everybody has been saying it is.
Assume a syllogism with a part which is infallibly proposed for belief by the Church and another which is a conclusion that we have reached through our own reasoning and observations. Let's take one that Fr. Fliess includes in his sermon: "the Church is indefectible (A), and the Church has defected if Bergoglio is pope (B), so Bergoglio cannot be pope". B is a matter of personal judgment - certain though we may be (or feel) - as the Church does not oblige us to believe the proposition "the Church has defected if Bergoglio is pope". A Catholic who, faced with this reasoning, does not accept the conclusion is obviously doubting B rather than A. Likewise, one who agrees with the syllogism but does not claim absolute certainty is obviously accepting that they may be in error about B and not saying that it's acceptable to question A. But Fr. Fliess draws no distinction between the two. That's what's so perverse about this "anti-opinionism", this notion that the truthfulness of some individual's personal conclusions on a matter of great complexity is so obvious that they enjoy a morally binding status nearly equivalent to mathematical principles or the Church's dogmatic teachings. That's where you get people like Clarence Creedwater Bachazzi who are so quick to see pertinacious heresy when their attempts at sede proselytism fall flat.
By vociferously attacking those who so much as admit the fallibility of their judgment in this matter, Fr. Fliess is all but asserting that intellectual humility is actually bad and that satanic pride is a Catholic virtue, unnecessarily troubling the consciences of the faithful who have come to him for spiritual aid and encouraging them to adopt a downright Pharisaical mentality. Whenever dogmatic sedevacantism rears its ugly head, pride and rash judgment are never far behind.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 24, 2016 4:52:38 GMT -5
But the good Father does quite more than just bark...he asserts that those who dont accept the sede position after being told of the papal claimnants heresies are they themselves no longer Catholic. I listened carefully to the sermon, again. Father asserted no such thing. Please quote what you have in mind. So Ill create a hypothetical...you are in a room with a spixxie...you lay out your best case for why a certain man or men cannot be popes...the spixxie listens but says Im sorry but I really cant accept what youve told me. Its just too fantastic...etc etc. Now what conclusion do YOU draw about this fellow Catholic? I have been there. I draw no personal conclusion other than they are scared; and they are scared because we live in a scary situation unprecedented in the history of the world. Nevertheless, Fr. Fleiss precisely performs just what the booklet says we are commanded to do if capable.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 24, 2016 4:57:04 GMT -5
Father doesnt say it he implys it. By asserting that if you believe Bergolio is Pope or could be...you ALSO then MUST belive the Church is defectable.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 24, 2016 5:19:52 GMT -5
"I'm not sure that I'm in possession of the whole truth; on the contrary, I'm practically certain that I'm not. What Christ couldn't say, all Christians must. There's a mix of passion and shortsightedness in me, even when I'm positive that I'm doing my very best to see things for what they are, that warns me that I'll never know for sure. Undoubtedly I must follow the truth I can see, I have no choice and I must live on; but that is for me only, not to impose on others." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Aug 24, 2016 6:44:32 GMT -5
I just listened to the sermon in full, and it's just as bad as everybody has been saying it is. Assume a syllogism with a part which is infallibly proposed for belief by the Church and another which is a conclusion that we have reached through our own reasoning and observations. Let's take one that Fr. Fliess includes in his sermon: "the Church is indefectible (A), and the Church has defected if Bergoglio is pope (B), so Bergoglio cannot be pope". B is a matter of personal judgment - certain though we may be (or feel) - as the Church does not oblige us to believe the proposition "the Church has defected if Bergoglio is pope". A Catholic who, faced with this reasoning, does not accept the conclusion is obviously doubting B rather than A. Likewise, one who agrees with the syllogism but does not claim absolute certainty is obviously accepting that they may be in error about B and not saying that it's acceptable to question A. But Fr. Fliess draws no distinction between the two. That's what's so perverse about this "anti-opinionism", this notion that the truthfulness of some individual's personal conclusions on a matter of great complexity is so obvious that they enjoy a morally binding status nearly equivalent to mathematical principles or the Church's dogmatic teachings. That's where you get people like Bachazzi( AKA CC) who are so quick to see pertinacious heresy when their attempts at sede proselytism fall flat. By vociferously attacking those who so much as admit the fallibility of their judgment in this matter, Fr. Fliess is all but asserting that intellectual humility is actually bad and that satanic pride is a Catholic virtue, unnecessarily troubling the consciences of the faithful who have come to him for spiritual aid and encouraging them to adopt a downright Pharisaical mentality. Whenever dogmatic sedevacantism rears its ugly head, pride and rash judgment are never far behind. All of this but what I highlighted, you are on to something there. Perfect word choice.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 24, 2016 6:56:25 GMT -5
Father doesnt say it he implys it. By asserting that if you believe Bergolio is Pope or could be...you ALSO then MUST belive the Church is defectable. He is saying a belief has consequent logical implications of other things. He didn't say anything about how anyone MUST believe something else.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 24, 2016 7:44:29 GMT -5
He is saying a belief has consequent logical implications of other things. He didn't say anything about how anyone MUST believe something else. Claiming that it's forbidden for a sedevacantist to so much as recognize the possibility that they might be wrong goes well beyond "saying a belief has consequent logical implications of other things". "It's absolutely certain that the papal claims of Jorge Bergoglio are incompatible with the indefectibility of the Church, but I'm not 100% sure that the Church is indefectible, so I can't say with absolute certainty that Jorge Bergoglio is not the pope." - No moderate sedevacantist ever
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 24, 2016 7:49:55 GMT -5
Could someone say which of the following propositions the anti-opinionists hold (whether or not they are stated or implied in Fr. Fliess's sermon)?
1. You (the audience) should be certain that Francis is not the pope.
2. You (the audience) must be certain that Francis is not the pope.
3. All sedevacantists should be certain that Francis is not the pope.
4. All sedevacantists must be certain that Francis is not the pope.
5. All Catholics should be certain that Francis is not the pope.
6. All Catholics must be certain that Francis is not the pope.
7. You (the audience) should treat people as non-Catholics who recognize Francis as the pope.
8. You (the audience) must treat people as non-Catholics who recognize Francis as the pope.
And for the "must" statements, what is the "or else"? That one is being unreasonable, or committing a sin, or that one becomes a public heretic or schismatic? Or something else?
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 24, 2016 8:00:52 GMT -5
I think Novus Ordo Watch may hold a more moderate anti-opinionist position. From the comments at this page: Response to Hilary WhiteBishop Sanborn's article on Opinionism doesn't take into account the position of the layman in this crisis. Most people have no way of figuring out for themselves whether the V-II men are popes, whether the Council taught heresy, was merely pastoral, etc., whether the new rites of Holy Orders are valid, which (if any) traditionalist Masses should be avoided or attended, etc. If you believe in the traditionalist chapel movement at all, you have to suppose that people can go in good conscience to pretty much any place where there's an appearance of continuity with pre-Vatican II practices, without having to first answer such questions through their own research. From the layman's point of view, it's quite logical to be an opinionist. “Fathers A, B, and C say that Francis is the pope. Fathers D and E say he's not the pope. All of them seem to make good arguments, and they know much more about it than I do. I'll go with Fathers A, B, and C on this one, at least tentatively, until some new information comes along to clear things up.” The layman is using extrinsic arguments, that is, recourse to authorities, to settle a question. We don't have lawful pastors or theologians to consult nowadays, so people look to traditionalist priests as the best sources of guidance that are available. Bp. Sanborn's article takes up the question on its merits, trying to establish sedevacantism as intrinsically certain, but many people are not able to do this kind of thing, and quite possibly would land in serious trouble if they tried. There are many traditionalists who have come unhinged trying to figure things out for themselves. These are valid observations, although I think they only impact culpability, not the issue of opinionism per se. Bp. Sanborn wasn't addressing culpability, from what I recall, which is a different animal altogether. So it seems that N.O.W. at least holds that one can be mistaken in good faith on the issue of sedevacantism.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 24, 2016 8:15:54 GMT -5
I think Novus Ordo Watch may hold a more moderate anti-opinionist position. From the comments at this page: Response to Hilary WhiteBishop Sanborn's article on Opinionism doesn't take into account the position of the layman in this crisis. Most people have no way of figuring out for themselves whether the V-II men are popes, whether the Council taught heresy, was merely pastoral, etc., whether the new rites of Holy Orders are valid, which (if any) traditionalist Masses should be avoided or attended, etc. If you believe in the traditionalist chapel movement at all, you have to suppose that people can go in good conscience to pretty much any place where there's an appearance of continuity with pre-Vatican II practices, without having to first answer such questions through their own research. From the layman's point of view, it's quite logical to be an opinionist. “Fathers A, B, and C say that Francis is the pope. Fathers D and E say he's not the pope. All of them seem to make good arguments, and they know much more about it than I do. I'll go with Fathers A, B, and C on this one, at least tentatively, until some new information comes along to clear things up.” The layman is using extrinsic arguments, that is, recourse to authorities, to settle a question. We don't have lawful pastors or theologians to consult nowadays, so people look to traditionalist priests as the best sources of guidance that are available. Bp. Sanborn's article takes up the question on its merits, trying to establish sedevacantism as intrinsically certain, but many people are not able to do this kind of thing, and quite possibly would land in serious trouble if they tried. There are many traditionalists who have come unhinged trying to figure things out for themselves. These are valid observations, although I think they only impact culpability, not the issue of opinionism per se. Bp. Sanborn wasn't addressing culpability, from what I recall, which is a different animal altogether. So it seems that N.O.W. at least holds that one can be mistaken in good faith on the issue of sedevacantism. Excellent post
|
|