|
Post by Clotilde on Aug 26, 2016 11:10:02 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 11:11:12 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. One other point, I know that there is more than one road to the una cum position. I am only dealing in this case with Sanborn's road to that end, as he and those like him reach their una cum position through their ideas on "Opinionism."
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 26, 2016 11:23:46 GMT -5
frankly at this point im not sure...is cc FOR anti opinionism....and in a sentence please define opinionism in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 26, 2016 11:50:25 GMT -5
Your view of what "love" is comprised of is tainted with a Liberal view. No it's not.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 26, 2016 11:53:48 GMT -5
frankly at this point im not sure...is cc FOR anti opinionism....and in a sentence please define opinionism in the first place. Bishop Sanborn does not define it as clearly as I would like, but he does quote +Lefebvre as holding the main tenet, "I do not say that the Pope is not the Pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the Pope is not the Pope." This in a nutshell is what Sanborn is condemning as "Opinionism."
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 26, 2016 15:07:26 GMT -5
Eric wrote:Once upon a time, Bp. Sanborn signed his name to a set of principles that were opposed to what he is currently teaching. I posted his former principles HERE
I would urge you to compare what he said there and against his current ideas. The same can be said of Fr. Cekada, also a signer of the "letter" and better explained in his old article, "The First Stone." Neither has bothered to explain why they think they are correct now and wrong before, or have bothered to publicly retract their former public positions. So the old position is that traditionalists should participate in the same priestly organizations, chapels, etc. although they disagree on important practical details about the Vatican II revolution (validity of the New Mass and new rites of Holy Orders, sedevacantism, etc.), and the new position is that such disagreements should cause a division into separate priestly organizations, chapels, etc.? If so, I don't see how the new position implies that those who differ in their analysis of the Vatican II revolution must regard each other as guilty of sin, much less as non-Catholics. They might simply regard them as dangerously mistaken and therefore to be avoided in certain matters. Please pardon me if I am talking nonsense; quite possibly I am missing the point on this opinionism controversy. I missed this one. The former principles understood that unsettled matters were just that, unsettled. The new principles demands forced adherance on unsettled matters.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 26, 2016 16:08:19 GMT -5
frankly at this point im not sure...is cc FOR anti opinionism....and in a sentence please define opinionism in the first place. Bishop Sanborn does not define it as clearly as I would like, but he does quote +Lefebvre as holding the main tenet, "I do not say that the Pope is not the Pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the Pope is not the Pope." This in a nutshell is what Sanborn is condemning as "Opinionism." Who knows the true identity of the Pope? To whom is the responsibility to know and disseminate this fact?
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 26, 2016 17:50:43 GMT -5
frankly at this point im not sure...is cc FOR anti opinionism....and in a sentence please define opinionism in the first place. Bishop Sanborn does not define it as clearly as I would like, but he does quote +Lefebvre as holding the main tenet, "I do not say that the Pope is not the Pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the Pope is not the Pope." This in a nutshell is what Sanborn is condemning as "Opinionism." Personally, I don't like the term "opinionism". It's not my preference, but the Church recognizes that humans like to categorize things for convenience, and accepts the fact, as when Pope Leo XIII wrote that letter to Cardinal Gibbons in Baltimore in 1899 and once in the letter said, "called by some "Americanism." " I prefer to handle things by traditional principles, in explanation. I am even less thrilled with "sedevacantism". Anyway, this statement by Abp. Lefebvre: "I do not say that the Pope is not the Pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the Pope is not the Pope." People treat this too seriously, as if he were getting up to a lectern and making a statement like a Doctor of the Church. No, he was having dinner in 1979 and enjoying himself, and expressed that while he actually chuckled. Fr. Cekada was there: www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdfPlease read the footnote #4, which shows that Abp. Lefebvre was trying to be amusing in French. It's a pretty funny tongue-twister when listened to by Google translate: goo.gl/0O68hg(Directions: turn up your sound and click the speaker icon to hear it in French) But, even to look at that phrase with perfect seriousness, it in no wise expresses opinionism. It merely is an expression that Abp. personally has not (yet) come to that conclusion, and a further admission that he realized people can and express that they have. That is not opinionism. I will go into further detail later when I give my own nutshell of what opinionism is.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 26, 2016 19:30:33 GMT -5
Bishop Sanborn does not define it as clearly as I would like, but he does quote +Lefebvre as holding the main tenet, "I do not say that the Pope is not the Pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the Pope is not the Pope." This in a nutshell is what Sanborn is condemning as "Opinionism." Personally, I don't like the term "opinionism". It's not my preference, but the Church recognizes that humans like to categorize things for convenience, and accepts the fact, as when Pope Leo XIII wrote that letter to Cardinal Gibbons in Baltimore in 1899 and once in the letter said, "called by some "Americanism." " I prefer to handle things by traditional principles, in explanation. I am even less thrilled with "sedevacantism". Anyway, this statement by Abp. Lefebvre: "I do not say that the Pope is not the Pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the Pope is not the Pope." People treat this too seriously, as if he were getting up to a lectern and making a statement like a Doctor of the Church. No, he was having dinner in 1979 and enjoying himself, and expressed that while he actually chuckled. Fr. Cekada was there: www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdfPlease read the footnote #4, which shows that Abp. Lefebvre was trying to be amusing in French. It's a pretty funny tongue-twister when listened to by Google translate: goo.gl/0O68hg(Directions: turn up your sound and click the speaker icon to hear it in French) But, even to look at that phrase with perfect seriousness, it in no wise expresses opinionism. It merely is an expression that Abp. personally has not (yet) come to that conclusion, and a further admission that he realized people can and express that they have. That is not opinionism. I will go into further detail later when I give my own nutshell of what opinionism is. Who knows the true identity of the Pope? To whom is the responsibility to verify-know and disseminate this fact?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 26, 2016 19:32:25 GMT -5
Bishop Sanborn does not define it as clearly as I would like, but he does quote +Lefebvre as holding the main tenet, "I do not say that the Pope is not the Pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the Pope is not the Pope." This in a nutshell is what Sanborn is condemning as "Opinionism." Who knows the true identity of the Pope? To whom is the responsibility to know and disseminate this fact? If you know who the true Pope was, you would be obliged to use his name. The obligation to disseminate this fact would fall on the Roman Curia, the Cardinals, and the hierarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 26, 2016 19:35:31 GMT -5
Bishop Sanborn does not define it as clearly as I would like, but he does quote +Lefebvre as holding the main tenet, "I do not say that the Pope is not the Pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the Pope is not the Pope." This in a nutshell is what Sanborn is condemning as "Opinionism." Personally, I don't like the term "opinionism". It's not my preference, but the Church recognizes that humans like to categorize things for convenience, and accepts the fact, as when Pope Leo XIII wrote that letter to Cardinal Gibbons in Baltimore in 1899 and once in the letter said, "called by some "Americanism." " I prefer to handle things by traditional principles, in explanation. I am even less thrilled with "sedevacantism". Anyway, this statement by Abp. Lefebvre: "I do not say that the Pope is not the Pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the Pope is not the Pope." People treat this too seriously, as if he were getting up to a lectern and making a statement like a Doctor of the Church. No, he was having dinner in 1979 and enjoying himself, and expressed that while he actually chuckled. Fr. Cekada was there: www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdfPlease read the footnote #4, which shows that Abp. Lefebvre was trying to be amusing in French. It's a pretty funny tongue-twister when listened to by Google translate: goo.gl/0O68hg(Directions: turn up your sound and click the speaker icon to hear it in French) But, even to look at that phrase with perfect seriousness, it in no wise expresses opinionism. It merely is an expression that Abp. personally has not (yet) come to that conclusion, and a further admission that he realized people can and express that they have. That is not opinionism. I will go into further detail later when I give my own nutshell of what opinionism is. I agree with all of this, but as we are discussing Bp. Sanborn's term, we must stick to his definition and explanation, unless you want to start a new thread that drops his term, and just uses approved terms.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 26, 2016 19:40:12 GMT -5
Who knows the true identity of the Pope? To whom is the responsibility to know and disseminate this fact? If you know who the true Pope was, you would be obliged to use his name. The obligation to disseminate this fact would fall on the Roman Curia, the Cardinals, and the hierarchy. So if the Roman Curia, the Cardinals, and the hierarchy are mistaken or deliberately deceptive about the matter?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 26, 2016 20:07:27 GMT -5
If you know who the true Pope was, you would be obliged to use his name. The obligation to disseminate this fact would fall on the Roman Curia, the Cardinals, and the hierarchy. So if the Roman Curia, the Cardinals, and the hierarchy are mistaken or deliberately deceptive about the matter? Well, anyone that is just mistaken on this is not at at fault. Let's say you were living in the old days prior to modern communication, and you were in Rome when the Pope died, and returned to your diocese in the United States, and when you returned, no one yet knew that the pope died, and were still using his name in the mass, would you have to refuse to go due to this error in fact? The answer is: of course not. Lets say you told your local pastor that the Pope has died, and he still continues to use the name of the deceased Pope, telling you, he wants to hear it from his bishop or another official source first. Do you need to avoid his mass? Again, of course not. Even in our situation, let's say that your Ukrainian priest saying his magnificent and ancient liturgy has doubts about Francis' orthodoxy, but wants to wait until he hears it from an official source, such as his bishop, that he is no longer Pope, is he correct? Again, yes, he does not have to make that judgment about Francis, and can reserve his judgment pending an authoritative decision on the matter. No one can be forced to make a judgment on their own if they are not sure and want the benefit of authority to give them certainty.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 26, 2016 21:08:16 GMT -5
If you know who the true Pope was, you would be obliged to use his name. The obligation to disseminate this fact would fall on the Roman Curia, the Cardinals, and the hierarchy. So if the Roman Curia, the Cardinals, and the hierarchy are mistaken or deliberately deceptive about the matter? In my opinion, the real elephant in the room is not that the V-2 popes were illegitimate, but that the whole hierarchy seems to have accepted them as true popes. According to Franzelin and Manning, this is impossible. Quotations & discussion in this thread: The Body of Bishops vs. Individual BishopsBy the whole hierarchy, I mean a supermajority that constitutes the morally unanimous opinion of the bishops as a body. Absolute unanimity is not necessary for this, as, for one thing, it would be impractical. I will look for citations on this if it needs to be proved. I don't see how one can skirt around this problem by saying that a handful of pre-V2 bishops (whom we cannot identify) never acknowledged the false popes, or that many of the bishops have just been mistaken, not malicious, in acknowledging the false popes.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 27, 2016 7:33:58 GMT -5
Personally, I don't like the term "opinionism". It's not my preference, but the Church recognizes that humans like to categorize things for convenience, and accepts the fact, as when Pope Leo XIII wrote that letter to Cardinal Gibbons in Baltimore in 1899 and once in the letter said, "called by some "Americanism." " I prefer to handle things by traditional principles, in explanation. I am even less thrilled with "sedevacantism". Anyway, this statement by Abp. Lefebvre: "I do not say that the Pope is not the Pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the Pope is not the Pope." People treat this too seriously, as if he were getting up to a lectern and making a statement like a Doctor of the Church. No, he was having dinner in 1979 and enjoying himself, and expressed that while he actually chuckled. Fr. Cekada was there: www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdfPlease read the footnote #4, which shows that Abp. Lefebvre was trying to be amusing in French. It's a pretty funny tongue-twister when listened to by Google translate: goo.gl/0O68hg(Directions: turn up your sound and click the speaker icon to hear it in French) But, even to look at that phrase with perfect seriousness, it in no wise expresses opinionism. It merely is an expression that Abp. personally has not (yet) come to that conclusion, and a further admission that he realized people can and express that they have. That is not opinionism. I will go into further detail later when I give my own nutshell of what opinionism is. I agree with all of this, but as we are discussing Bp. Sanborn's term, we must stick to his definition and explanation, unless you want to start a new thread that drops his term, and just uses approved terms. You brought up Abp. Lefebvre's words here. So, I addressed them here.
|
|