|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 21, 2016 18:30:42 GMT -5
We are living today, not in the 5th century. Your method of reverting to a less precise standard is not the practice of the Church as it existed for centuries. The Church has allowed its theologians to better distinguish between heresy and lesser forms of doctrinal error. Your ideas on this remind me greatly of Feeneyites who play with theology and do as they please, rather than learn theology in the method that the Church gives us. The Feeneyites look at the ancient Fathers for supposed support for the position, and you, look at a former usage of a term, that has not been used in the way you are using it for a very long time, despite the fact that the Church through its teaching authority and authorized theologians has used much more clear and specific terms in the form of precise notes for hundreds of years at least. I would also refer you to this post in the library regarding Pope John XXII. I stand by my assertion regarding public heretics. Why did you quote me when your post appears to be a response to CC?
|
|
recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Aug 21, 2016 20:15:18 GMT -5
We are living today, not in the 5th century. Your method of reverting to a less precise standard is not the practice of the Church as it existed for centuries. The Church has allowed its theologians to better distinguish between heresy and lesser forms of doctrinal error. Your ideas on this remind me greatly of Feeneyites who play with theology and do as they please, rather than learn theology in the method that the Church gives us. The Feeneyites look at the ancient Fathers for supposed support for the position, and you, look at a former usage of a term, that has not been used in the way you are using it for a very long time, despite the fact that the Church through its teaching authority and authorized theologians has used much more clear and specific terms in the form of precise notes for hundreds of years at least. I would also refer you to this post in the library regarding Pope John XXII. I stand by my assertion regarding public heretics. Why did you quote me when your post appears to be a response to CC? I think it was just an error.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 21, 2016 20:37:23 GMT -5
I have to quote this in its entirety because it's almost 4 weeks old now. I don't know why it was even presented here, because it certainly is no authoritative answer to the sermon by Fr. Fleiss. This John Lane, whoever he is, says that the sermon was "Horrible!" And I say, that the email by John Lane was, in all truth, "Horrible" itself! because he is flatly wrong, and I can give support for what I say. Let those who have passively accepted it already without question, now question why they passively accepted it! It is the last portion that is really the zinger: "the Church, who alone could settle the matter in a way that would bind all, without exception. In this light it can easily be seen that the dogmatism of the dogmatic sedevacntists is a species of liberalism, for liberalism's absolute essence is the replacement of authority with private judgement."Here he is promoting the concept that we should not make a judgment unless "the Church" decides the matter. Keep that in mind. There is a booklet called, "Liberalism is a Sin", and it was scrutinized by the Holy Office in 1887, and highly praised in the most glowing terms, even after it was submitted to Rome by a Liberal bishop who thought Rome would condemn it. It is a booklet of 33 chapters where the 32nd chapter talks about "Liberalism and Authority in Particular Cases": www.ewtn.com/library/theology/libsin.HTM#32John Lane is going contrary to this. He is ignoring that "reason" (enlightened by faith) is a true "authority" that we are obliged to follow. He is promoting that we need to wait for "the Church", the highest authority, to decide something before we make and promote a judgement! Read that chapter. The chapter of the approved booklet says that reason is an authority and it is perfectly good BEFORE higher authority might makes a judgement (even if it never does). Ironic, but while John Lane says dogmatic sedevacantism is a "species of liberalism", this book says that John Lane's view is not only liberal, but "a species of brutal and satanic Jansenism".
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 21, 2016 21:15:03 GMT -5
No what he is saying is what Ive always said....we cannot use our reason to bind others. You may not say to your brother "thou fool" because then YOU are in danger of hell. Its not about simply insulting somepne with the epithet "fool" it is about placing yourself above someone else because you have more "talents" or "we have abraham for our father".... for I tell you God can raise children of Abraham from any source He pleases. If your reason has made the crisis clear to you...then Praise God not reason....reason is a Gift. If the crisis isnt as clear to your brother...the is Gods business not yours....and Gods earthly officers reside in the Church...they have the badges to publically judge others...not the laity. That is what Mr Lane is saying. Not that you as an individual cant judge things to be this...or that...and live your life by this light...but what you have zero authority to do is judge your brothers lack of clarity. Who are we to judge another mans servant
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 21, 2016 21:35:39 GMT -5
No what he is saying is what Ive always said....we cannot use our reason to bind others. You may not say to your brother "thou fool" because then YOU are in danger of hell. Its not about simply insulting somepne with the epithet "fool" it is about placing yourself above someone else because you have more "talents" or "we have abraham for our father".... for I tell you God can raise children of Abraham from any source He pleases. If your reason has made the crisis clear to you...then Praise God not reason....reason is a Gift. If the crisis isnt as clear to your brother...the is Gods business not yours....and Gods earthly officers reside in the Church...they have the badges to publically judge others...not the laity. That is what Mr Lane is saying. Not that you as an individual cant judge things to be this...or that...and live your life by this light...but what you have zero authority to do is judge your brothers lack of clarity. Who are we to judge another mans servant I am not binding others by my reason. I am saying I have the right to proclaim what the truth is according to reason, and that others who see it as reasonable must comply. If they don't see it as reasonable, they can reject it, but they CANNOT say I don't have the right to proclaim it as the truth. John Lane is declaring I don't have the right to declare something as true based on reason, and the book says it is a species of "brutal and satanic jansenism" to insist I don not have a right to consider "reason" to be an authority.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 21, 2016 21:59:22 GMT -5
Funny I read that whole thing and I cant see it as reasonable to come to your conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 21, 2016 22:01:31 GMT -5
please explain about how folks must comply...comply with what?
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 21, 2016 22:08:58 GMT -5
Did you read the chapter I mentioned?
Let's see what Pacelli thinks.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 21, 2016 22:29:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 21, 2016 22:31:07 GMT -5
error has no rights...so its possble you dont have a right to proclaim whst you think is reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 21, 2016 22:46:02 GMT -5
It's rather perverse to claim that John Mr. Lane, who rejects no less than 5 papal claimants based solely on conclusions personally drawn from Catholic doctrine, is actually opposed to drawing personal conclusions from Catholic doctrine that are morally binding on those who accept the reasoning. The book chapter you linked to is brilliant and does not at all prove what you claim it does, as pretty much everyone on here opposes R&R and isn't afraid to point out its non-Catholic implications. Just like John Mr. Lane.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 22, 2016 8:26:43 GMT -5
Novus Ordo Watch, in Tradcast 014, recommended Fr. Fliess's “sermon” on opinionism. I think the owner of N.O.W. is thoughtful and well-informed, so it's hard to believe that Fr. Fliess is so obviously wrong as John Lane would have it. But I also have great respect for Mr. Lane and would be surprised if he were mistaken when he thinks his position has a very firm basis. So the disagreement about opinionism is an odd thing. Here is something N.O.W. recently wrote against opinionism ( link): There is an error in the last sentence: instead of dogma, it should say dogmatic fact or theological conclusion. Of course there has been no dogmatic definition that Francis is not the pope; what N.O.W. is arguing is that this conclusion is unavoidable in light of Catholic faith, right reason, and the available public evidence, and therefore it should be reached by all Catholics. This does not mean that all Catholics must conclude that Francis is not the pope, on pain of sin or of loss of membership in the Church; clearly there are cases in which a Catholic may recognize Francis as the pope without any fault, as a result of lack of knowledge, faulty reasoning, or deferring to the opinion of others whom one regards as more educated and qualified to examine the case (such as sedeplenist clergy). I believe Mr. Lane agrees with all of this. Perhaps the disagreement begins with other points found in Bp. Sanborn's article on opinionism (linked by N.O.W.). I think that article indeed goes wrong by saying that a person cannot lawfully remain in doubt about the identity of the pope, and that if this error were corrected, the rest of the opinionism controversy could be settled. Here is an excerpt from Bp. Sanborn's article: I think it's false that one is obligated to reach a certain conclusion in favor of either sedevacantism or sedeplenism. It seems that to resolve the question in favor of sedeplenism using reflex principles does not give true certainty, but only moral certainty in the broad sense, which is safe to follow in practice but is not absolute certainty and may be mistaken. Thus a reflex sedeplenist could say, “The sedevacantists could be right, but as yet I am not persuaded of it.” This implies a kind of provisional adherence to the sedeplenist opinion. Likewise, a sedevacantist could say, “I believe that the sedevacantist thesis is compelling, and for my part I regard it as certain, but it is possible that I am in error.” Not to say this would be to claim absolute certainty for one's own reasoning and examination of evidence, as if human beings were not liable to error. In both of these cases, there is an absolute submission to the papacy; the doubt only regards the person of the Roman Pontiff at the present time. I think an argument can be made that the identity of the Roman Pontiff can be objectively doubtful, at least for a large portion of the Church, and that in such cases all that is required is that the faithful be willing to submit to all lawful ecclesiastical authority as and when they are able to identify it. This post is already too long, so I'll leave this point for another post. But it seems pretty obvious that during the Great Western Schism, many Catholics, including bishops, remained in doubt about the person of the Roman Pontiff for quite some time. I think the opinionism question gets heated when it's used as the basis for determining what Masses are lawful. It seems that Mr. Lane takes the view that any priest, sedevacantist or not, may lawfully offer a traditional Mass and the sacraments publicly because of the state of necessity, and that the faithful may approach all such priests regardless of their views on the pope question. I think this position – which, if not held by John Lane, at least is held by very many traditionalists – is wrong because it dispenses with the need for any lawful authority on the part of the Catholic clergy. In this paradigm, one can receive Holy Orders and start a public ministry without any title except that of necessity. I don't see how this can conform to the divine constitution of the Church. Certainly the traditionalist priests bear the burden of proving that their course of action is lawful or at least appropriate given the circumstances – but instead, the burden is usually shifted to anyone who questions the lawfulness of the traditionalist chapel movement.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 22, 2016 11:49:30 GMT -5
CC wrote: It seems to me that you are doing exactly as Vox pointed out to you, that you appear to think that when you reason things out, that others must follow your reasoning. Another way of saying it is that you seem to think you can bind Catholics to your positions.
I think it is ridiculous that you are using a book that John Lane has promoted on his website for years against him, as though his position somehow contradicts the teaching as explained in the book.
We can use our reason and apply principles prior to the judgement of the Church. When we do this, we only bind ourselves, not others, who may not agree. We are only bound to our own judgments when we have formed a moral certainty, and even then, we should always remain open to correction on our private and fallible judgments. Even if someone agrees that your reasoning is sound, he still does not have to agree with you, as he may still have doubts, or need further assurance that he is not mistaken from the lawful authority.
Non-authorities are just that, non-authorities.
Let's examine the key passage:
It is important to take careful note of the principles:
1. We can apply principles prior to, and even without, the authority. 2. Our judgments on such matters bind our own conscience. 3. Our judgments must be open to correction.
Our judgments do not bind others who either disagree with us, or who remain unsure that we are correct. Also, no one has the obligation to learn from those who are not their lawful pastors in the first place.
Even in the example that Fr. Sarda Y Salvany gives, regarding a book not on the index, a case can be made against the book that the principles used in placing a book on the index would apply to a specific non-censured book, is a Catholic obliged to avoid such a book if he has not yet formed moral certainty that the principles apply in this case?
The answer is absolutely "no." If a Catholic is morally certain that the principles apply, he is bound in to his own conscience in the matter, even if he is wrong. If another Catholic does not think the book would be placed on the index, he is not bound. If the Index places the book in question on the index, all our bound.
CC wrote:
False. John Lane has reasoned and applied Catholic principles on heretics and membership in the Church and has concluded that the public heretics claiming to be popes are not popes. He is using the same principle as explained by Fr. Sarda Y Salvany. Mr. Lane has never said that we must wait for the Church to settle the matter before we are able to form personal moral certainty, or even promote that truth publicly prior to the judgment of the Church.
What John Lane has not done is make a judgment against other Catholics who have not formed personal moral certainty about Francis and the others. Until the Church judges the matter, no one can authoritatively judge the matter, and if anyone does, he is a usurper, unlawfully taking for himself the authority belonging only to hierarchy alone. Until the Church judges the matter, Catholics can only rely on their reasoning of the principles involved, and must realize that other's may reason it out differently, hence the need for authority in the first place.
The so called "anti-opinionists" are liberals, as liberalism places the individual over the authority. "I have reasoned this out, you must believe me, I am the authority, and you will obey me." The trouble with this is that those pretending to be the authority are not, and no matter how correct they are, they cannot bind any other Catholic to agree with them.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 22, 2016 14:35:02 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that treating our morally certain conclusions as binding on other Catholics is a form of liberalism; instead it's the vice opposed to liberalism (like the difference between an overly scrupulous conscience and an overly lax conscience). Liberalism is a disordered tolerance for error - theoretically or practically putting error on the same pedestal as truth. On the other hand, anti-opinionism is a disordered intolerance for error, as it consists in treating truths that we come to know by inference from doctrine as binding on others in the same way as truths that are definitely proposed for belief by God's representatives.
I do think that Pacelli tends to fall into a certain liberalism at times, precisely because he's such a stickler for the rules.
CC, are you forums user "RobertJS" by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 22, 2016 14:35:39 GMT -5
The so called "anti-opinionists" are liberals, as liberalism places the individual over the authority. "I have reasoned this out, you must believe me, I am the authority, and you will obey me." The trouble with this is that those pretending to be the authority are not, and no matter how correct they are, they cannot bind any other Catholic to agree with them. This is a gross fabrication. You just invented a double-quoted text as if Fr. Fleiss said, or even implied, any such thing, which he didn't. The only part you have right is "I have reasoned this out". The rest is a lie. Try quoting Fr. Fliess if you plan on criticizing him. The anti-opinionists are doing exactly what the chapter says to do: "Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad, and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church." This is precisely what Fr. Fliess is doing. Nothing "horrible" about it. Determine what are the errors and look at the censure chart. The SSPX have many errors, and they are seriously harmful to the faith. Grievous matter. To say stay away from the danger completely is in full accord with the chapter of the booklet. It is one thing to claim the conclusion is wrong (which is perfectly acceptable to attempt to do), and entirely another thing to say Fr. Fliess does not have the right to do what he does. John Lane is attacking his right and duty to do it, which Fr. Salvany is saying is a Liberal tenet and "a species of brutal and satanic jansenism".
|
|