|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 24, 2016 20:03:18 GMT -5
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. It's not because I am against opinionism, and yet I think the una cum concern is unfounded. What one decides to talk about in one article doesn't mean everything is automatically connected.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 24, 2016 20:15:51 GMT -5
Read Sanborn, he connected it. It's not because I am against opinionism, and yet I think the una cum concern is unfounded. What one decides to talk about in one article doesn't mean everything is automatically connected. For Sanborn, they are interconnected, for you it may not be. Regardless, he has explicitly drawn the connection, therefore it cannot be ignored. He is a very influential person, people listen to him and learn from him. The fact that he is teaching this is a problem, and that is why I am highlighting it. Anti-Opinionism logically leads to want he is espousing, he is not being illogical, just incorrect in his premises. I am am not unaware that the anti-una cum position can be argued from a different angle, other than anti-Opinionism, I am only dealing with the una cum angle here it here since it is an avenue to that end, as Sanborn has made clear.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 24, 2016 22:16:45 GMT -5
I am posting a transcript of Fr. Fleiss' "sermon" on "Opinionism" below. I would urge the reader to compare his talk with Bp. Sanborn's tract on "Opinionism," found HEREFr. Fleiss said:
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 25, 2016 6:58:28 GMT -5
Indeed, Bishop Sanborn's position on the una cum Mass follows almost necessarily from the anti-opinionism stuff. If a Catholic must affirm with dogmatic certainty that Francis is not the pope, then attendance at a Mass where he is named in the canon amounts to public participation in a prayer which contradicts Catholic dogma.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 25, 2016 8:15:46 GMT -5
This may be true in the Roman rite but not the Byzantine rite DL.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 25, 2016 9:30:36 GMT -5
This may be true in the Roman rite but not the Byzantine rite DL. Sanborn's principles apply equally to all rites. He is saying that it sin against the First Commamdmemt to go to mass, and this includes the Divine Liturgy of the eastern rites, that it is in union with the undeclared heretic. The principle follows from his ideas on so called "Opinionism." The Te igitur prayer is a prayer for the Pope, the same as in the Divine Liturgy. Sanborn and Cekada have been made aware of this fact as it has been public knowledge your a long time since these debates took place on the Bellarmime Forums years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 25, 2016 10:49:54 GMT -5
Well historically speaking...the name of king...czar...emperor...prince were named and prayed for in the same liturgy...and some of these kings were horrible sinners and reprobates.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 25, 2016 11:45:29 GMT -5
Right, but it would be forbidden to assist at a Mass where a declared heretic or excommunicate is named in the canon. If the status of the Vatican II popes is a matter of dogma and not of opinion, then the sedevacantist layman who attends a Mass offered una cum the current Vatican critter is knowingly taking part in an act that is contrary to Catholic dogma.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 25, 2016 15:22:51 GMT -5
Right, but it would be forbidden to assist at a Mass where a declared heretic or excommunicate is named in the canon. If the status of the Vatican II popes is a matter of dogma and not of opinion, then the sedevacantist layman who attends a Mass offered una cum the current Vatican critter is knowingly taking part in an act that is contrary to Catholic dogma. What Catholic dogma is violated if a false Pope was able to insinuate himself through deception into the Mass. Remember the Laity are not responsible for the Rubrics..and further they are not even required to know the entire theology of the Mass...they are only required to "approach with fear of God and in faith"...only required to accept that the bread and wine become the body blood soul and divinity....consider this hypothetical: One Priest says mass and uses a book that names a true Pope...he leaves the book in its place on the altar and the following Sunday a different and rookie Priest is assigned to say mass as the former Priest is unavailable. Between the two masses the Pope dies...a state of sedevacante exists...BUT no one changes the book or updates it...the Rookie Priest names the wrong name in the Mass...has the Mass become defective? Is it not true to say that the only one required by law to know the name of the True Pope is the Hierarchy...the laity cannot be found guilty of Believing the Hierarchy can they?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 25, 2016 22:40:06 GMT -5
Right, but it would be forbidden to assist at a Mass where a declared heretic or excommunicate is named in the canon. If the status of the Vatican II popes is a matter of dogma and not of opinion, then the sedevacantist layman who attends a Mass offered una cum the current Vatican critter is knowingly taking part in an act that is contrary to Catholic dogma. Exactly, this is where the line in drawn. There is a world of difference between a declared excommunicate and one that deserves to be declared but is not yet declared.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 25, 2016 22:42:06 GMT -5
Right, but it would be forbidden to assist at a Mass where a declared heretic or excommunicate is named in the canon. If the status of the Vatican II popes is a matter of dogma and not of opinion, then the sedevacantist layman who attends a Mass offered una cum the current Vatican critter is knowingly taking part in an act that is contrary to Catholic dogma. What Catholic dogma is violated if a false Pope was able to insinuate himself through deception into the Mass. Remember the Laity are not responsible for the Rubrics..and further they are not even required to know the entire theology of the Mass...they are only required to "approach with fear of God and in faith"...only required to accept that the bread and wine become the body blood soul and divinity....consider this hypothetical: One Priest says mass and uses a book that names a true Pope...he leaves the book in its place on the altar and the following Sunday a different and rookie Priest is assigned to say mass as the former Priest is unavailable. Between the two masses the Pope dies...a state of sedevacante exists...BUT no one changes the book or updates it...the Rookie Priest names the wrong name in the Mass...has the Mass become defective? Is it not true to say that the only one required by law to know the name of the True Pope is the Hierarchy...the laity cannot be found guilty of Believing the Hierarchy can they? Whether you realize it or not, you just demolished one of Cekada's arguments. A priest may not know who the pope is, say for example a pope has died, and a new one elected, but the mass is still safe to go to. One does not have to avoid it.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 26, 2016 6:05:49 GMT -5
This is the extent of how far error leads people, once the first principles are incorrect.:
Fr. Desposito wrote:
And
For those not aware, Desposito is a "professor" in Sanborn's "seminary."
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 26, 2016 6:52:30 GMT -5
It's not because I am against opinionism, and yet I think the una cum concern is unfounded. What one decides to talk about in one article doesn't mean everything is automatically connected. For Sanborn, they are interconnected, for you it may not be. Regardless, he has explicitly drawn the connection, therefore it cannot be ignored. He is a very influential person, people listen to him and learn from him. The fact that he is teaching this is a problem, and that is why I am highlighting it. Anti-Opinionism logically leads to want he is espousing, he is not being illogical, just incorrect in his premises. I am am not unaware that the anti-una cum position can be argued from a different angle, other than anti-Opinionism, I am only dealing with the una cum angle here it here since it is an avenue to that end, as Sanborn has made clear. Opinionism applies to how to handle other issues. Una cum is another issue. Whether una cum is a valid issue, or whether or not opinionism applies to it, are another issue. Yes a principle can be applied to other issues, and in that sense they are "interconnected". However, you are trying to reverse things here by showing that if the una cum issue is absurd then so is anti-opinionism. That is not logical.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Aug 26, 2016 7:10:29 GMT -5
As far as Sanborn & Co., the una cum and Opinionism2 positions go hand in hand. One naturally stems from the other.
According to both: the una cum is so offensive to God because sedevacantism is evident fact and truth, one must accept it; and therefore with no room for "opinion" one must outright reject this offense to God by avoiding the una cum masses
Likewise: Since there is no room for opinion, that one must reject Francis in order to be a Catholic, one cannot go such a mass that names Francis as pope, no excuses, no exceptions
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Aug 26, 2016 7:25:26 GMT -5
www.sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1669&start=0The link above, in light of recent years, shows a shift or development in these positions, I post it for reference and because it touches on the combination of these two topics without intending to do so. Now, some may say that this only applies to sedevacantists going to the una cum, but it doesn't. The position, since the development of Opinionism 2 has shifted to include no "toleration" for those who do not accept, or yet accept sedevacantism, as far as the assistance at a mass offered una cum Francis goes. It is because it supposes that acceptance of Francis automatically makes one a member of a sect, without regard to the binding status of Francis as imposed upon Catholics by the actual Church. Within these positions, there is no tolerance for ignorance, intellect, or caution regarding one's salvation. In reality, they are binding people to their opinion and morals without authority to do so, not to mention that those who do not agree are to be regarded as non-Catholics. I don't think we have seen the end of that last part because what we are witnessing is the development of a sect.
|
|