|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 27, 2016 10:35:20 GMT -5
OPINIONISM - Insisting that a controversial belief, and its denial, be looked at alone - excluding consideration of any doctrinal implications it could have - and declaring both to be a valid theological opinion because the Church hasn't decided which one is correct.
Example of a theological opinion: Souls in purgatory can intercede for us on earth, or not. The search for doctrinal implications of each has already been performed and because none were found, we are free to believe either.
Example of opinionism: The SSPX takes "Francis is the pope", and it's denial, and forces it in to the same category of a theological opinion by ignoring the command and grave moral duty to first consider any doctrinal implications.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 27, 2016 11:01:16 GMT -5
I wish you could make it simpler...basically I hear...Francis is not pope...this is dogma...denial of this by the laity is denial of the faith.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 27, 2016 11:28:52 GMT -5
I wish you could make it simpler...basically I hear...Francis is not pope...this is dogma...denial of this by the laity is denial of the faith. You need to get your ears checked, now!
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 27, 2016 11:48:55 GMT -5
This is not the definition used by the man who made up the term.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 27, 2016 12:38:02 GMT -5
This is not the definition used by the man who made up the term. I consciously wrote, "A" definition. Though I do believe the principled concept is a part of his. But this thread here is specifically about my definition.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 27, 2016 12:49:01 GMT -5
This is not the definition used by the man who made up the term. I consciously wrote, "A" definition. Though I do believe the principled concept is a part of his. But this thread here is specifically about my definition. It's not your place to define a term created by him. He created it, he needs to define it, otherwise admit the term is vague in itself, and not defineable. This is the mess he created when he introduced a new and unapproved term to Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 27, 2016 13:11:46 GMT -5
I consciously wrote, "A" definition. Though I do believe the principled concept is a part of his. But this thread here is specifically about my definition. It's not your place to define a term created by him. He created it, he needs to define it, otherwise admit the term is vague in itself, and not defineable. This is the mess he created when he introduced a new and unapproved term to Catholics. I said I believe it is in accord with what he wrote at length. I have condensed it down, and I believe he would approve of the conciseness. It sure is my place to do so. There is no copyright or trademark involved here. Many people attempt to define sedevacantism, and they differ slightly, but the same concept shines through. Nobody needed approval to invent "Americanism", but Pope Leo saw no problem in people labeling those errors such. We don't need to wait for approval.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 27, 2016 14:00:03 GMT -5
It's not your place to define a term created by him. He created it, he needs to define it, otherwise admit the term is vague in itself, and not defineable. This is the mess he created when he introduced a new and unapproved term to Catholics. I said I believe it is in accord with what he wrote at length. I have condensed it down, and I believe he would approve of the conciseness. It sure is my place to do so. There is no copyright or trademark involved here. Many people attempt to define sedevacantism, and they differ slightly, but the same concept shines through. Nobody needed approval to invent "Americanism", but Pope Leo saw no problem in people labeling those errors such. We don't need to wait for approval. I didn't say you needed legal approval to define his term. You are not grasping my comments accurately. Sanborn invented this term. Before he invented it, it did not exist. He is the only source we have to grasp the meaning of the term. If you are going to define it in place of him, you cannot deviate from his usage, without admitting that the term is essentially vague and worthless.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 27, 2016 14:17:00 GMT -5
I said I believe it is in accord with what he wrote at length. I have condensed it down, and I believe he would approve of the conciseness. It sure is my place to do so. There is no copyright or trademark involved here. Many people attempt to define sedevacantism, and they differ slightly, but the same concept shines through. Nobody needed approval to invent "Americanism", but Pope Leo saw no problem in people labeling those errors such. We don't need to wait for approval. I didn't say you needed legal approval to define his term. You are not grasping my comments accurately. Sanborn invented this term. Before he invented it, it did not exist. He is the only source we have to grasp the meaning of the term. If you are going to define it in place of him, you cannot deviate from his usage, without admitting that the term is essentially vague and worthless. My concise definition is what I extracted in concept from hearing and reading about the subject. I have an absolute right to attempt that without getting his approval. Pretty interesting how the owner of this forum insisted I define Opinionism in a couple of sentences, and when I did, his moderator is telling me I had no right to do so!
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 27, 2016 14:30:39 GMT -5
I didn't say you needed legal approval to define his term. You are not grasping my comments accurately. Sanborn invented this term. Before he invented it, it did not exist. He is the only source we have to grasp the meaning of the term. If you are going to define it in place of him, you cannot deviate from his usage, without admitting that the term is essentially vague and worthless. My concise definition is what I extracted in concept from hearing and reading about the subject. I have an absolute right to attempt that without getting his approval. Pretty interesting how the owner of this forum insisted I define Opinionism in a couple of sentences, and when I did, his moderator is telling me I had no right to do so! Your still not understanding. I never said you have to get Sanborn's approval. If you think so, quote me. Re-read what I wrote, rather than read into what I wrote. I think I am getting at the root of my problem with you, you do not read things carefully. You can use his term as he defined it, and try to understand it as he defined it. What you cannot do is define it your own way that is different from his definition, without admitting that the term is vague, and therefore worthless.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 27, 2016 14:35:53 GMT -5
My concise definition is what I extracted in concept from hearing and reading about the subject. I have an absolute right to attempt that without getting his approval. Pretty interesting how the owner of this forum insisted I define Opinionism in a couple of sentences, and when I did, his moderator is telling me I had no right to do so! Your still not understanding. I never said you have to get Sanborn's approval. If you think so, quote me. Re-read what I wrote, rather than read into what I wrote. I think I am getting at the root of my problem with you, you do not read things carefully. You can use his term as he defined it, and try to understand it as he defined it. What you cannot do is define it your own way that is different from his definition, without admitting that the term is vague, and therefore worthless. You said "unapproved", which means someone does the approving. Who? Again, I believe my definition is in accord with his article.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 27, 2016 14:43:26 GMT -5
Your still not understanding. I never said you have to get Sanborn's approval. If you think so, quote me. Re-read what I wrote, rather than read into what I wrote. I think I am getting at the root of my problem with you, you do not read things carefully. You can use his term as he defined it, and try to understand it as he defined it. What you cannot do is define it your own way that is different from his definition, without admitting that the term is vague, and therefore worthless. You said "unapproved", which means someone does the approving. Who? Again, I believe my definition is in accord with his article. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 27, 2016 14:51:48 GMT -5
You said "unapproved", which means someone does the approving. Who? Again, I believe my definition is in accord with his article. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 27, 2016 19:47:58 GMT -5
The end result is exactly as I heard it with my bad ears
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 27, 2016 20:55:52 GMT -5
The end result is exactly as I heard it with my bad ears It is your end result. Clean your ears out and then listen.
|
|