|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 27, 2016 21:17:56 GMT -5
Unless you hear what I hear...opinionism has no definition. YOU need to stop trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 27, 2016 21:30:40 GMT -5
Unless you hear what I hear...opinionism has no definition. YOU need to stop trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Silly. I think it is high time you explain why you thought Fr. Fleiss' sermon was changing your position and then what convinced you so much not to be swayed that way.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 27, 2016 22:24:29 GMT -5
because Pacelli proved his case.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 27, 2016 22:27:32 GMT -5
because Pacelli proved his case. Can you quote the significant portion that so impressed you?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 27, 2016 22:37:35 GMT -5
because Pacelli proved his case. Can you quote the significant portion that so impressed you? Nope all of it...which caused me to rethink it...and led me to ask the question as to WHO is required to descern the True Pope and who is not.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 28, 2016 5:07:08 GMT -5
Can you quote the significant portion that so impressed you? Nope all of it...which caused me to rethink it...and led me to ask the question as to WHO is required to descern the True Pope and who is not. So, you think it is good for a Catholic to say, "Francis is the pope" as saying, "he is not"? That we shouldn't look for any doctrinal implications? Or, that there are no doctrinal implications?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 28, 2016 6:01:36 GMT -5
Nope all of it...which caused me to rethink it...and led me to ask the question as to WHO is required to descern the True Pope and who is not. So, you think it is good for a Catholic to say, "Francis is the pope" as saying, "he is not"? That we shouldn't look for any doctrinal implications? Or, that there are no doctrinal implications? In regards to the liturgy....who is required to descern the True Pope and who is not?...This regards culpability and guilt before God. Which is all that really matters.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 28, 2016 7:06:44 GMT -5
So, you think it is good for a Catholic to say, "Francis is the pope" as saying, "he is not"? That we shouldn't look for any doctrinal implications? Or, that there are no doctrinal implications? In regards to the liturgy....who is required to descern the True Pope and who is not?...This regards culpability and guilt before God. Which is all that really matters. Not in regard to the liturgy.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 28, 2016 10:20:43 GMT -5
Well, silly....if you exclude the Liturgy/Mass from the conversation what the hell is the point of the term? For it is only there that the Laity even come close to a forum where they must express the subject of Pope in a directly theological action. Yes, resistors disobey the "pope" And sedes ignore the rantings of an imposter...but it is only in the Mass that any kind of very dangerous conclusion is drawn...such as not going to a Una Cum Mass/Liturgy.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 28, 2016 11:48:58 GMT -5
Well, silly....if you exclude the Liturgy/Mass from the conversation what the hell is the point of the term? For it is only there that the Laity even come close to a forum where they must express the subject of Pope in a directly theological action. Yes, resistors disobey the "pope" And sedes ignore the rantings of an imposter...but it is only in the Mass that any kind of very dangerous conclusion is drawn...such as not going to a Una Cum Mass/Liturgy. Apparently, you still don't understand the subject. It has to do with beliefs and corruption of doctrine. This is what the laity has outside of Mass. You have not answered my questions yet.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 28, 2016 13:06:38 GMT -5
Well, silly....if you exclude the Liturgy/Mass from the conversation what the hell is the point of the term? For it is only there that the Laity even come close to a forum where they must express the subject of Pope in a directly theological action. Yes, resistors disobey the "pope" And sedes ignore the rantings of an imposter...but it is only in the Mass that any kind of very dangerous conclusion is drawn...such as not going to a Una Cum Mass/Liturgy. Apparently, you still don't understand the subject. It has to do with beliefs and corruption of doctrine. This is what the laity has outside of Mass. You have not answered my questions yet. You can try to frame it to suit your purposes all you want...I have understood the core issue ....authority. Im not aware of you asking me anything that I havent answered...you on the other hand have not answered the question I asked...who is responsable to God to inform the laity of the true pope?. Remember not all lay Catholics are well informed...interweb connected...or even intelligent human beings. This ism is just another way some sedes and trads get to grab the good seats...get the youtube channels...get noticed above the crisis. Intellectual..pendantic...how many angels on a pinhead shite.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 28, 2016 15:54:16 GMT -5
Apparently, you still don't understand the subject. It has to do with beliefs and corruption of doctrine. This is what the laity has outside of Mass. You have not answered my questions yet. You can try to frame it to suit your purposes all you want...I have understood the core issue ....authority. Im not aware of you asking me anything that I havent answered...you on the other hand have not answered the question I asked...who is responsable to God to inform the laity of the true pope?. Remember not all lay Catholics are well informed...interweb connected...or even intelligent human beings. This ism is just another way some sedes and trads get to grab the good seats...get the youtube channels...get noticed above the crisis. Intellectual..pendantic...how many angels on a pinhead shitee. Your question pertains specifically to the liturgy, and because I am not talking about the liturgy, I didn't answer your question. I did ask my questions first, and here they are again, and they only require a Yes or No answer. So, you think it is good for a Catholic to say, "Francis is the pope" as saying, "he is not"? That we shouldn't look for any doctrinal implications? Or, that there are no doctrinal implications?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 28, 2016 17:59:10 GMT -5
Do not understand at all...rephrase.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 28, 2016 19:36:31 GMT -5
Do you now think his term is an approved term to be used in theology? If so say so, and provide an approved source that has used it. You have not demonstrated your assertion, making it a gratuitous assertion on your part. Until you do that, there is no point in discussing this, as we are not agreed on terms. Another way of saying this: if you want use your own words to define Sanborn's made up term, you need to show that your definition is the same as his definition. If you can't do that, there is no point in discussing it. I will not enter a serious discussion until we are settled on the use of terms. Such discussions that lack that are trees of rotten fruit. Opinionism isn't a theological term. Nor is Americanism. No approval needed for either, and the latter is historical proof. Your claim that something like this needs approval is baseless. Fine, if you don't think I should call it that, you have made your mind known. Why not move on now and discuss the content of the definition which is true by any name or no name given to it. Pope Leo XIII himself used this term, so it is an approved term as the usage in this case was from a Pope himself. The U.S. Bishops further approved the term and explained its approved usage. Many theological terms are tacitly approved through toleration from the Holy See, but in this case, it is directly used by the Pope. As I said before, so called "Opinionism" is a poorly defined and made up term, never used in Catholic theology. Sanborn took it upon himself to make up his own word and introduce it into Catholic theology in a writing that was never approved by the Church. His tract on "Opinionism" lacks sources and is full of his own ideas, based on his assumptions that are not built upon Catholic theology, but his own opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 28, 2016 19:47:38 GMT -5
Do you now think his term is an approved term to be used in theology? If so say so, and provide an approved source that has used it. You have not demonstrated your assertion, making it a gratuitous assertion on your part. Until you do that, there is no point in discussing this, as we are not agreed on terms. Another way of saying this: if you want use your own words to define Sanborn's made up term, you need to show that your definition is the same as his definition. If you can't do that, there is no point in discussing it. I will not enter a serious discussion until we are settled on the use of terms. Such discussions that lack that are trees of rotten fruit. Opinionism isn't a theological term. Nor is Americanism. No approval needed for either, and the latter is historical proof. Your claim that something like this needs approval is baseless. Fine, if you don't think I should call it that, you have made your mind known. Why not move on now and discuss the content of the definition which is true by any name or no name given to it. Are you defining a new term, or trying to define Sanborn's word? If you are defining Sanborn's term, you need to demonstrate that your definition is synonymous with his definition. If you are creating your own new term, and are planning to introduce it into Catholic theology on your own initiative I hope you will at least not do shoddy work like Sanborn, and defend your usage with a careful use of sources to support every assertion made in the definition.
|
|