|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 26, 2016 7:54:04 GMT -5
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. They are both erroneous.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 26, 2016 8:44:34 GMT -5
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. They are both erroneous. You may say so, but as far as proving anti-opinionism wrong through proving anti-una-cum wrong, it cannot be done logically, and therefore your objective really derails the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 26, 2016 8:58:00 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. I am glad you say "almost" necessarily. Almost does not mean that it does. Where you say, "amounts to", you are affirming Bp. Sanborn's view of what the name in the canon signifies. I don't think you really affirm that, so you should not be saying that it amounts to that.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 26, 2016 9:07:25 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. That's like saying that, "I made Bp. Fellay aware that Abp. Lefebvre doubted the man was pope and that 'a doubtful pope is no pope' ". It's really not that simple, and you know it. Don't try to give the impression that Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada are purposely acting against the truth as you know it.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 26, 2016 9:56:28 GMT -5
You may say so, but as far as proving anti-opinionism wrong through proving anti-una-cum wrong, it cannot be done logically, and therefore your objective really derails the thread. No, they are tied together by the man who made up the term. "Opinionism" is a made up word, so we must learn about it from the man who made it up, and see how he defines and uses the word.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 26, 2016 10:20:54 GMT -5
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. That's like saying that, "I made Bp. Fellay aware that Abp. Lefebvre doubted the man was pope and that 'a doubtful pope is no pope' ". It's really not that simple, and you know it. Don't try to give the impression that Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada are purposely acting against the truth as you know it. There is only one truth, and the status of this truth is known. Let's see their sources, and whether they apply. John Lane corrected them with sources, and all we have heard is crickets.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 26, 2016 10:28:05 GMT -5
You may say so, but as far as proving anti-opinionism wrong through proving anti-una-cum wrong, it cannot be done logically, and therefore your objective really derails the thread. No, they are tied together by the man who made up the term. "Opinionism" is a made up word, so we must learn about it from the man who made it up, and see how he defines and uses the word. Yes, it is made up word. Yes, we should see how how he defines and uses it. Which I hve. Yes, it is tied together. BUT, there is no dependence of the latter on the former, i.e., you cannot debunk anti-una-cum and logically expect anti-opinionism to be debunked thereby.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 26, 2016 10:37:43 GMT -5
Clarence Bachazzi sure has a lot of time on his hands.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 26, 2016 10:37:43 GMT -5
That's like saying that, "I made Bp. Fellay aware that Abp. Lefebvre doubted the man was pope and that 'a doubtful pope is no pope' ". It's really not that simple, and you know it. Don't try to give the impression that Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada are purposely acting against the truth as you know it. There is only one truth, and the status of this truth is known. Let's see their sources, and whether they apply. John Lane corrected them with sources, and all we have heard is crickets. On separate occasions, I corrected Bp. Fellay and Bp. Williamson and Fr. Scott and also heard crickets. Done? You are going against even what Voxx explained about in this thread, which I agreed with - how SO many factors are involved in why someone doesn't accept something after it is completely explained.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 26, 2016 10:47:10 GMT -5
We are judged by the same standard that we apply to others. If contributors here have been much more critical of Bishop Sanborn's doctrinal deviations than those of, say, Bishop Williamson, it's because Bishop Sanborn has such extreme views concerning Catholics who err in good faith, which are not only bad from a theological standpoint but also lead to unhealthy attitudes that ruin love of neighbor.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 26, 2016 10:49:01 GMT -5
No, they are tied together by the man who made up the term. "Opinionism" is a made up word, so we must learn about it from the man who made it up, and see how he defines and uses the word. Yes, it is made up word. Yes, we should see how how he defines and uses it. Which I hve. Yes, it is tied together. BUT, there is no dependence of the latter on the former, i.e., you cannot debunk anti-una-cum and logically expect anti-opinionism to be debunked thereby. By bringing in the una cum, I am showing the logical end of where it leads. There is nothing wrong with Sanborn and Desposito's logic. The term "Opinionism" as defined by the man who created the term, describes a position, that if one takes logically leads to the secondary position on the "una cum," as also described by these men.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 26, 2016 10:52:07 GMT -5
There is only one truth, and the status of this truth is known. Let's see their sources, and whether they apply. John Lane corrected them with sources, and all we have heard is crickets. On separate occasions, I corrected Bp. Fellay and Bp. Williamson and Fr. Scott and also heard crickets. Done? You are going against even what Voxx explained about in this thread, which I agreed with - how SO many factors are involved in why someone doesn't accept something after it is completely explained. Start separate threads on these other points, if I think I need to respond I will. It might be that I agree with you on few things, I would have to see what your talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 26, 2016 10:55:22 GMT -5
We are judged by the same standard that we apply to others. If contributors here have been much more critical of Bishop Sanborn's doctrinal deviations than those of, say, Bishop Williamson, it's because Bishop Sanborn has such extreme views concerning Catholics who err in good faith, which are not only bad from a theological standpoint but also lead to unhealthy attitudes that ruin love of neighbor. Your view of what "love" is comprised of is tainted with a Liberal view. I have quote St. Pius X already on this.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 26, 2016 10:58:18 GMT -5
Yes, it is made up word. Yes, we should see how how he defines and uses it. Which I hve. Yes, it is tied together. BUT, there is no dependence of the latter on the former, i.e., you cannot debunk anti-una-cum and logically expect anti-opinionism to be debunked thereby. By bringing in the una cum, I am showing the logical end of where it leads. There is nothing wrong with Sanborn and Desposito's logic. The term "Opinionism" as defined by the man who created the term, describes a position, that if one takes logically leads to the secondary position on the "una cum," as also described by these men. It is not the "logical" end, otherwise there would be a dependency. I know there is no dependency because I think the argument behind anti-una-cum is unfounded, and it doesn't affect so-called anti-opinionism one bit. Something can occasion something else without being a result.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 26, 2016 11:04:52 GMT -5
By bringing in the una cum, I am showing the logical end of where it leads. There is nothing wrong with Sanborn and Desposito's logic. The term "Opinionism" as defined by the man who created the term, describes a position, that if one takes logically leads to the secondary position on the "una cum," as also described by these men. It is not the "logical" end, otherwise there would be a dependency. I know there is no dependency because I think the argument behind anti-una-cum is unfounded, and it doesn't affect so-called anti-opinionism one bit. Something can occasion something else without being a result. I disagree, the term "Opinionism" as explained by Sanborn, logically leads to his position on una cum. Read his writings, it is logical. Sanborn is wrong on this but he is not stupid.
|
|