|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 24, 2016 8:27:53 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)? You should listen to the sermon yourself and make up your mind, but as I see it 1-4 are unmistakably implied and 5-6 are implied by extension, as "all sedevacantists must be absolutely certain that Francis is not the pope" necessarily leads to "all Catholics must be sedevacantists". While 7-8 are not quite logical conclusions of such an attitude, they are very often practical results as it's hard to adhere to 1-6 and not gravitate towards the notion that sedevacantists are the only true Catholics, with the attendant bitter zeal and "indiscriminate sermonizing" (as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange puts it). Whence you get snide remarks to the effect of "at least they're following their principles" when R&R types join the Novus Ordo, and other things of this sort which no longer have the good of the error-affected person in mind. Also, you must be the first person to sincerely inquire about what censure is thought to be incurred from disagreeing with the personal judgment of Bishop Sanborn.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 24, 2016 8:46:39 GMT -5
You should listen to the sermon yourself and make up your mind, but as I see it 1-4 are unmistakably implied and 5-6 are implied by extension, as "all sedevacantists must be absolutely certain that Francis is not the pope" necessarily leads to "all Catholics must be sedevacantists". While 7-8 are not quite logical conclusions of such an attitude, they are very often practical results as it's hard to adhere to 1-6 and not gravitate towards the notion that sedevacantists are the only true Catholics, with the attendant bitter zeal and "indiscriminate sermonizing" (as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange puts it). Whence you get snide remarks to the effect of "at least they're following their principles" when R&R types join the Novus Ordo, and other things of this sort which no longer have the good of the error-affected person in mind. I did listen to the sermon, and I didn't hear him saying that everyone must agree with his position. Right near the end he said it's "absolutely certain" that Francis is not the pope, but that can be interpreted in a benign way. Also, you must be the first person to sincerely inquire about what censure is thought to be incurred from disagreeing with the personal judgment of Bishop Sanborn. Thanks, I kind of like being unique! One of my faults. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 24, 2016 11:52:38 GMT -5
Fr Fliess said: Fr. Fliess is here asserting that a Catholic cannot hold as an opinion that Francis is not the pope, even if one is not certain. He is wrong, a Catholic can and must form his conscience to the best of his ability, and if a Catholic forms such an opinion based on his understanding of the facts, he is well within his rights. It is not "utterly false" to doubt oneself and one's own judgment of the facts of the case or one's own understanding of the principles involved. It is not "utterly false" in distrusting oneself to want to wait for the judgment of authority to give the conscience certainty and dispel doubts. A Catholic is not obliged to take a position on an unsettled matter, if he remains unsure, until it is imposed upon him by authority. Even if an airtight case is presented to him demonstrating the position is true, he is still not obliged to believe it, if he remains uncertain on the matter, for whatever reason he may have. Even if his reasons are weak, it is his conscience, and he remains in good conscience so long as he is not being false to himself. Only the authority can bind, not non-authorities, who can only persuade. You misunderstood what Father said. Your reply addressed that some individual Catholics are not able to come to that conclusion. Father would not deny that some people cannot. Note his wording, "one cannot be certain..." which is the same as saying, "no one can be certain...". When Father says, "many" and "They" he is talking about those Catholics who insist that - nobody can be certain. It is quite frequently espoused on web forums. I have dealt with it often, and it boils down to where a person cannot bring himself to be certain, and cannot bear the thought that others might be capable to, so he jumps on the bandwagon to make himself feel good by saying nobody can be certain of such a thing. Then, these same people see so many other traditionalists claiming they are certain Francis is not pope, so these people concede because they want peace and don't want to think they are absolutely smarter than all those others, take to walking the fence saying that everyone may only hold that he is a false pope as an "opinion". Yes, opinion in this case does mean that the opposite could be true. Yes, it amounts to doubt. 'It might be, but then again it might not be'. It is utterly false, because a pope cannot be of a doubtful character and be a true pope. Approved Catholic books mention the principle "a doubtful pope is no pope" (papa dubius papa nullus). It is related to the moral principle of a doubtful obligation does not bind. My interpretation of his talk takes in the obvious context. He is the student, and he is saying what his master says, almost word for word by the way. He is using less precision, and by that his words are not as clear as Bp. Sanborn's but they are birds of the same feather. He titled his talk "Opinionism," the very word coined by his leader. He then went on to describe "Opinionism" in the same way as Samborn, but less precise so it could lead to more than one interpretation, as things appear implied rather than explicit. I remain confident in my understanding of what he meant, he is thinking in the same way as Sanborn who made up this term. If anyone wants to read Bishop Sanborn's tract on "Opinionism," it is HERE
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 24, 2016 12:04:06 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 You have the wrong idea about certitude and doubt. There are two types of doubt - founded and hypothetical. The booklet "Liberalism is a Sin" listed the gradations of authority, with the last be "reason". If one is certain based on any level of authority, there is only hypothetical doubt that higher authority would say we were wrong. Catholics are not supposed to act on hypothetical doubt, but this is what you are trying to promote here.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 24, 2016 12:14:24 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? 1. Yes. Objectively the whole world should know the truth. 2. Must....if one does not want to hold those errors which are geared to the destruction of faith. 3. The same as #1 4. The same as #2 5. The same as #1 6. The same as #2 7. And 8. No. One must stay away from the near occasion of being corrupted by these errors. We are always obliged to even stay away from other Catholics if the circumstances are a near occasion of corruption, even of merely moral corruption.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 24, 2016 12:20:01 GMT -5
You misunderstood what Father said. Your reply addressed that some individual Catholics are not able to come to that conclusion. Father would not deny that some people cannot. Note his wording, "one cannot be certain..." which is the same as saying, "no one can be certain...". When Father says, "many" and "They" he is talking about those Catholics who insist that - nobody can be certain. It is quite frequently espoused on web forums. I have dealt with it often, and it boils down to where a person cannot bring himself to be certain, and cannot bear the thought that others might be capable to, so he jumps on the bandwagon to make himself feel good by saying nobody can be certain of such a thing. Then, these same people see so many other traditionalists claiming they are certain Francis is not pope, so these people concede because they want peace and don't want to think they are absolutely smarter than all those others, take to walking the fence saying that everyone may only hold that he is a false pope as an "opinion". Yes, opinion in this case does mean that the opposite could be true. Yes, it amounts to doubt. 'It might be, but then again it might not be'. It is utterly false, because a pope cannot be of a doubtful character and be a true pope. Approved Catholic books mention the principle "a doubtful pope is no pope" (papa dubius papa nullus). It is related to the moral principle of a doubtful obligation does not bind. My interpretation of his talk takes in the obvious context. He is the student, and he is saying what his master says, almost word for word by the way. He is using less precision, and by that his words are not as clear as Bp. Sanborn's but they are birds of the same feather. He titled his talk "Opinionism," the very word coined by his leader. He then went on to describe "Opinionism" in the same way as Samborn, but less precise so it could lead to more than one interpretation, as things appear implied rather than explicit. I remain confident in my understanding of what he meant, he is thinking in the same way as Sanborn who made up this term. If anyone wants to read Bishop Sanborn's tract on "Opinionism," it is HERESuffice to say, this thread is about THIS sermon by Fr. Flies. Nobody has proven that it is against "Liberalism is a Sin", nor contain anything "horrible" in it. If you want to start another thread about the tract on "Opinionism" then that is another story. If you want to talk about precision, calling this sermon "horrible", is devoid of precision because it is plainly false.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 24, 2016 12:45:33 GMT -5
Bishop Sanborn in in his conclusion to "Opinionism" wrote:
The preceding has two false statements:
1. In both cases, neither sedevacantists or sedeplenists are schismatic, as both groups have not severed themselves from the Roman Pontiff.
2. It is a legitimate position to act on moral certainty on unsettled matters, even if one is incorrect. The authority has not bound Catholics to adhere to a certain view on the status of persons, so Catholics only have their own fallible private judgment to rely on, and have the right to not make any judgment if they remain unsure on the matter.
The only position that we, the learning Church, have is to form our own individual conscience on these matters, and act accordingly. The status of the post-Vatican papal claims is an unsettled matter, so each Catholic who is honestly trying to form their conscience is acting according to the correct principle of how a Catholic is supposed to act on unsettled matters.
If a Catholic forms the incorrect conclusion on what the truth is regarding these papal claimants he is not by that a schismatic, he is just objectively incorrect on the matter of truth not yet settled by the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 24, 2016 12:52:02 GMT -5
My interpretation of his talk takes in the obvious context. He is the student, and he is saying what his master says, almost word for word by the way. He is using less precision, and by that his words are not as clear as Bp. Sanborn's but they are birds of the same feather. He titled his talk "Opinionism," the very word coined by his leader. He then went on to describe "Opinionism" in the same way as Samborn, but less precise so it could lead to more than one interpretation, as things appear implied rather than explicit. I remain confident in my understanding of what he meant, he is thinking in the same way as Sanborn who made up this term. If anyone wants to read Bishop Sanborn's tract on "Opinionism," it is HERESuffice to say, this thread is about THIS sermon by Fr. Flies. Nobody has proven that it is against "Liberalism is a Sin", nor contain anything "horrible" in it. If you want to start another thread about the tract on "Opinionism" then that is another story. If you want to talk about precision, calling this sermon "horrible", is devoid of precision because it is plainly false. No, the thread is about Opinionism. Fr. Fliess is espousing the position coined by his master. The "sermon" is horrible, as it espouses a position that is horrible. I am aware that Fleiss is just a soldier, following his general, but he is on the wrong side. This position is grounded in schism, and he is pushing it, even if he didn't spell out every last word of it in his "sermon." That's what "Opinionism" is, and that is the term he used in his "sermon." He works for Sanborn and was taught by Sanborn, and used Sanborn's made up word that was defined by him and then proceeded to teach Catholics using that term. As I said, there is no doubt about his intent in my mind, so long as you don't divorce it from its context as you appear to do.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 24, 2016 13:11:49 GMT -5
7. And 8. No. One must stay away from the near occasion of being corrupted by these errors. We are always obliged to even stay away from other Catholics if the circumstances are a near occasion of corruption, even of merely moral corruption. In other words, despite claiming non-adherence to these propositions Clarence Creedwater Bachazzi reaches the same practical conclusions as those who would identify R&R types as objective non-Catholics. His drawing up of an equivalence between R&Rers on one hand and sincere Protestants and Eastern Schismatics on the other makes this clear. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Aug 24, 2016 14:21:55 GMT -5
7. And 8. No. One must stay away from the near occasion of being corrupted by these errors. We are always obliged to even stay away from other Catholics if the circumstances are a near occasion of corruption, even of merely moral corruption. In other words, despite claiming non-adherence to these propositions Bachazzi reaches the same practical conclusions as those who would identify R&R types as objective non-Catholics. His drawing up of an equivalence between R&Rers on one hand and sincere Protestants and Eastern Schismatics on the other makes this clear. 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.Your assessment is correct. In practice, the followers of this sermon and the Opinionism work by Sanborn consider non-sedevacantists to be non-Catholics or treated as such and therefore persons to convert. So as result of these teachings which are presented as if they are from the Church, we see the sede-proselytizing which you mentioned earlier. I have seen persons from Florida to Ohio who adhere to these teachers who hold the following--with no attempts by the traditionalist clergy to correct them: 1.Everyone in the Novus Ordo is a non-Catholic 2. Non-sedevacantists need prayers for conversion, as they are schismatics 3. Dating or courtship with a non-sedevacantist is not allowed 4. People in attendance at SSPX, Eastern rites, or elsewhere need to be converted and attend a sedevacantist mass center, CMRI tolerated in some cases 5. Any view against the official Opinion is sinful, or an occasion of sin--a danger to the soul 6. Refusal to pray with other Catholics 7. Denial of sacraments to self, even in case of emergency 8. Approval and expectation of the denial of sacraments to others 9. Meddling in marital affairs by laity, including providing counsel against a spouse This is just related to the subject at hand, and I'm not even getting into the other problems within traditionalism, but they are linked.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 24, 2016 15:34:41 GMT -5
I have posted Sanborn's article that labels Catholic masses as non-Catholic, and his telling Catholics not to attend such masses under any circumstance. LINKIf anyone wants to see the end of the road of this error of "anti-Opinionism," this is your destination: schism and sectarianism.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 24, 2016 17:42:19 GMT -5
Suffice to say, this thread is about THIS sermon by Fr. Flies. Nobody has proven that it is against "Liberalism is a Sin", nor contain anything "horrible" in it. If you want to start another thread about the tract on "Opinionism" then that is another story. If you want to talk about precision, calling this sermon "horrible", is devoid of precision because it is plainly false. No, the thread is about Opinionism. Fr. Fliess is espousing the position coined by his master. The "sermon" is horrible, as it espouses a position that is horrible. I am aware that Fleiss is just a soldier, following his general, but he is on the wrong side. This position is grounded in schism, and he is pushing it, even if he didn't spell out every last word of it in his "sermon." That's what "Opinionism" is, and that is the term he used in his "sermon." He works for Sanborn and was taught by Sanborn, and used Sanborn's made up word that was defined by him and then proceeded to teach Catholics using that term. As I said, there is no doubt about his intent in my mind, so long as you don't divorce it from its context as you appear to do. The actual discussion thread, started by the OP (not the poll), is about the sermon. Interesting things have surfaced. Naturally, Voxx thought the sermon simply represented the position against opinionism. 11 minutes is abundant time to give an encyclopedic dictionary explanation, with examples. Now you are starting to claim that the sermon really didn't give the full position, but that it is "horrible" because of what it omitted to say and what it is associated with! What that means is that you didn't really have to listen to it at all, but would claim it horrible because of the association with Bp. Sanborn's article. Two things especially interesting - 1) If Father left out what was "horrible", was it be design or mere coincidence? Perhaps it was left out because anything that might be "horrible" is really not an intrinsic part of the position? 2) Particularly interesting is the fact that many were asked here to find what was horrible IN the sermon, and wound up imagining things that were not there. Perhaps what is supposed to be "horrible" really isn't in the Opinionism article after all.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 24, 2016 18:57:57 GMT -5
No, the thread is about Opinionism. Fr. Fliess is espousing the position coined by his master. The "sermon" is horrible, as it espouses a position that is horrible. I am aware that Fleiss is just a soldier, following his general, but he is on the wrong side. This position is grounded in schism, and he is pushing it, even if he didn't spell out every last word of it in his "sermon." That's what "Opinionism" is, and that is the term he used in his "sermon." He works for Sanborn and was taught by Sanborn, and used Sanborn's made up word that was defined by him and then proceeded to teach Catholics using that term. As I said, there is no doubt about his intent in my mind, so long as you don't divorce it from its context as you appear to do. The actual discussion thread, started by the OP (not the poll), is about the sermon. Interesting things have surfaced. Naturally, Voxx thought the sermon simply represented the position against opinionism. 11 minutes is abundant time to give an encyclopedic dictionary explanation, with examples. Now you are starting to claim that the sermon really didn't give the full position, but that it is "horrible" because of what it omitted to say and what it is associated with! What that means is that you didn't really have to listen to it at all, but would claim it horrible because of the association with Bp. Sanborn's article. Two things especially interesting - 1) If Father left out what was "horrible", was it be design or mere coincidence? Perhaps it was left out because anything that might be "horrible" is really not an intrinsic part of the position? 2) Particularly interesting is the fact that many were asked here to find what was horrible IN the sermon, and wound up imagining things that were not there. Perhaps what is supposed to be "horrible" really isn't in the Opinionism article after all. No, the discussion is about Opionism. The Fleiss talk is an example of its promotion, and it's not the only relevant document. The "sermon" is horrible as it pushes a schismatic and erroneous position. I stand by that. I have already explained it in detail above. Read it to see the reasons and stop acting like it has not been explained already.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 24, 2016 19:03:51 GMT -5
The actual discussion thread, started by the OP (not the poll), is about the sermon. Interesting things have surfaced. Naturally, Voxx thought the sermon simply represented the position against opinionism. 11 minutes is abundant time to give an encyclopedic dictionary explanation, with examples. Now you are starting to claim that the sermon really didn't give the full position, but that it is "horrible" because of what it omitted to say and what it is associated with! What that means is that you didn't really have to listen to it at all, but would claim it horrible because of the association with Bp. Sanborn's article. Two things especially interesting - 1) If Father left out what was "horrible", was it be design or mere coincidence? Perhaps it was left out because anything that might be "horrible" is really not an intrinsic part of the position? 2) Particularly interesting is the fact that many were asked here to find what was horrible IN the sermon, and wound up imagining things that were not there. Perhaps what is supposed to be "horrible" really isn't in the Opinionism article after all. No, the discussion is about Opionism. The Fleiss talk is an example of its promotion, and it's not the only relevant document. The "sermon" is horrible as it pushes a schismatic and erroneous position. I stand by that. I have already explained it in detail above. Read it to see the reasons and stop acting like it has not been explained already. You stand by it, but cannot argue it. You are now also acting as if the anti-una-cum issue is a part of anti-opinionism when it is really a separate issue.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 24, 2016 19:27:27 GMT -5
No, the discussion is about Opionism. The Fleiss talk is an example of its promotion, and it's not the only relevant document. The "sermon" is horrible as it pushes a schismatic and erroneous position. I stand by that. I have already explained it in detail above. Read it to see the reasons and stop acting like it has not been explained already. You stand by it, but cannot argue it. You are now also acting as if the anti-una-cum issue is a part of anti-opinionism when it is really a separate issue. Read Sanborn, he connected it.
|
|