|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 28, 2016 20:54:16 GMT -5
This is all really just repetitive stuff now. As I said before, Pacelli, you made your mind known already of your objections to the term, and I have responded. Voxx asked me to do the definition, so I did it. Talk to him about it.
What you should do now is look at the OP and each of the two times you see the word "opinionism", replace it with the word "problem". That's an approved word. Then we can continue to look at the the problem itself, that is a real problem today.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 28, 2016 21:55:46 GMT -5
The Problem is a corrupt and psudo-Hierarchy NOT the laity refusing to be dogmatic sedes.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 28, 2016 22:08:58 GMT -5
Do not understand at all...rephrase. Is it just as acceptable to say "Francis is the pope" as it is to say "Franics is not the pope"? Are there any negative doctrinal implications to saying "Franics is the pope"? Do you think it doesn't matter to even attempt to see if there are any negative doctrinal implications in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 28, 2016 22:19:53 GMT -5
Do not understand at all...rephrase. Is it just as acceptable to say "Francis is the pope" as it is to say "Franics is not the pope"? yes..if your laityAre there any negative doctrinal implications to saying "Franics is the pope"? not if your LaityDo you think it doesn't matter to even attempt to see if there are any negative doctrinal implications in the first place? Only if your hierarchyOk questions answered.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 28, 2016 22:35:03 GMT -5
Is it just as acceptable to say "Francis is the pope" as it is to say "Franics is not the pope"? yes..if your laityAre there any negative doctrinal implications to saying "Franics is the pope"? not if your LaityDo you think it doesn't matter to even attempt to see if there are any negative doctrinal implications in the first place? Only if your hierarchyOk questions answered. All your answers reveal that your thiking is contrary to what is taught in the second-to-last chapter of the booklet "Liberalism is a Sin", which was highly praised for by the Holy Office for its doctrine after being scrutinized in 1887.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 29, 2016 4:26:11 GMT -5
Are you calling me a Liberal son?
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 29, 2016 6:20:00 GMT -5
Are you calling me a Liberal son? One chapter among 33 doesn't make one a Liberal. Liberalism is a group of errors.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Aug 29, 2016 7:27:14 GMT -5
Every layman who is a sedevacantist must logically believe that laymen can and should become sedevacantists, and that it's a good thing for them to do so. This is not to say that every layman can do it -- some may lack the knowledge, ability, resources, etc. -- but that many can do it.
John Daly has said (in personal correspondence) that to increase the number of sedevacantists is among the main contributions we can make toward an end to this crisis. (He said the most important thing we can do is to pray.) I think most sedevacantists would agree with this.
CC, I agree with you that logic and evidence can demonstrate to a moral certainty that Francis is not a legitimate pope, and that this certainty is binding upon those who have it. In other words, those who are certain must be certain -- a tautology of course.
As you have noted, the position of the anti-opinionists goes well beyond this. Look at this Q&A with Novus Ordo Watch:
I think your arguments about opinionism would find favor here if you presented them differently. All you have claimed, I think, is that people can and should be certain that Francis is not the pope, and that the authority of reason demands that they be certain if the evidence is conclusive. But this is moral certainty, not absolute certainty as Fr. Fliess erroneously called it.
As Novus Ordo Watch said, this *should not be* controversial.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2016 7:44:30 GMT -5
The Problem is a corrupt and psudo-Hierarchy NOT the laity refusing to be dogmatic sedes. This is 100% correct, however as long as the laity refuse to be dogmatic sedes, how is the problem ever to be solved? Aside from divine intervention and the end of times, I'm speaking of mundane practicality. If a problem is not recognized how can it possibly be rectified?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 29, 2016 8:08:51 GMT -5
Every layman who is a sedevacantist must logically believe that laymen can and should become sedevacantists, and that it's a good thing for them to do so. This is not to say that every layman can do it -- some may lack the knowledge, ability, resources, etc. -- but that many can do it. John Daly has said (in personal correspondence) that to increase the number of sedevacantists is among the main contributions we can make toward an end to this crisis. (He said the most important thing we can do is to pray.) I think most sedevacantists would agree with this. CC, I agree with you that logic and evidence can demonstrate to a moral certainty that Francis is not a legitimate pope, and that this certainty is binding upon those who have it. In other words, those who are certain must be certain -- a tautology of course. As you have noted, the position of the anti-opinionists goes well beyond this. Look at this Q&A with Novus Ordo Watch: I think your arguments about opinionism would find favor here if you presented them differently. All you have claimed, I think, is that people can and should be certain that Francis is not the pope, and that the authority of reason demands that they be certain if the evidence is conclusive. But this is moral certainty, not absolute certainty as Fr. Fliess erroneously called it. As Novus Ordo Watch said, this *should not be* controversial. Great post, Eric. I think a point to ponder in this is that some sedevacantists evolved in their thinking over time and developed these ideas on "Opinionism, and the "una cum." This was not the thinking of sedevacantists for the first few decades of the crisis, at least far as I am aware. At some point, maybe late 1990's or the first decade of the 21st century, a new position appeared to be taking hold among some, that sedevacantism was obligatory for Catholics, and that they could no longer attend masses "una cum" with the undeclared antipope. This new opinion (error) soon took a form and was given a name and that was "Opinionism." If you read the three documents I posted, the excerpt from the letter of the nine to Archbishop Lefebvre, the First Stone and the Question of Authority by Fr. Cekada, you will see the position and principles of sedevacantists as they existed before the introduction of the novelty of "Opinionism." One thing to take note of in this shift, is that none of those who changed ever bothered to correct the record and explain their shift, by recanting their former position by demonstrating their supposed former error. They just introduced these new ideas onto Catholics, and none of their followers seemed to notice that contradiction from their former principles. It was now to be accepted as the "new truth," and in my opinion, if it were not for John Lane, standing so strongly against this new error over the last 15 years or so, I think the infection among sedevacantists would have been a lot worse.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 29, 2016 8:54:30 GMT -5
As far as I know, the first person to argue against "una cum" mass attendance was Bp. Guérard des Lauriers, and even then he recognized that it was better to attend an "una cum" mass than to deny oneself Holy Communion for months at a time.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 29, 2016 10:43:33 GMT -5
Una-cum is not the subject of this thread. Sure, it makes it easy for one to become anti-una-cum if one is anti-opinionist, but one can easily exist without the other, as it does with me. Please don't derail the thread. There is no principles connect between the two.
My questions to Voxx are really for all. Voxx's answers violate the teachings in the 32nd chapter of "Liberalism is a Sin" and, so far, nobody here seems to care. That's really disturbing. The subject right now are those questions I have asked.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 29, 2016 10:47:20 GMT -5
Una-cum is not the subject of this thread. Sure, it makes it easy for one to become anti-una-cum if one is anti-opinionist, but one can easily exist without the other, as it does with me. Please don't derail the thread. There is no principles connect between the two. My questions to Voxx are really for all. Voxx's answers violate the teachings in the 32nd chapter of "Liberalism is a Sin" and, so far, nobody here seems to care. That's really disturbing. The subject right now are those questions I have asked. I asked you...who is responsable before God to give the laity the name of a True Pope...youve dodged it. Also reading chapter 32...I find no where my answers violate(?):Liberalism is a sin....unless you consider my response to your question was in fact liberal...it was not...it was only liberal if you hold antiopinionism a dogma. I assert boldly that the laity have no condemnation for being led to confusion...the sheep are not the shepherds.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 29, 2016 10:52:26 GMT -5
Una-cum is not the subject of this thread. Sure, it makes it easy for one to become anti-una-cum if one is anti-opinionist, but one can easily exist without the other, as it does with me. Please don't derail the thread. There is no principles connect between the two. My questions to Voxx are really for all. Voxx's answers violate the teachings in the 32nd chapter of "Liberalism is a Sin" and, so far, nobody here seems to care. That's really disturbing. The subject right now are those questions I have asked. Your very quick to make that judgment against Voxx based on some one word answers he gave. I do not believe Voxx disagrees with the principles of chapter 32 of Sarda's book. I think Voxx is honing in on the matter from a different angle, but not in contradiction with Sarda. I will ask Voxx my own questions that will be written with more precision, based on the Sarda's principles, and then we will see the truth. Btw, there is a direct connection between the una cum position and Opinionism for those that reach the conclusion through the "Opinionism" path. Since that is what we are discussing, it is relevant.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 29, 2016 11:53:06 GMT -5
New questions for Voxx, put forth clearly and based strictly upon the principles as put forth by chapter 32 of the book, Liberalism is a Sin:
Voxx, if you wouldn't mind answering these questions, your answers, I am confident, will expose the rashness of the accusation made by Clarence Creedwater against you:
1. Do you agree with the following principle: "you may suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined." (Sarda)
Example, the Vatican II "Popes" have taught something new to the Church, never before taught, in this case, that we can pray with those outside the Church.
Can we judge this as against the Faith prior to the judgment of authority?
2. Can you further act upon that same doctrine, and "combat it as bad, and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it...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." (Sarda)
In regards to the example above, can you denounce the new teaching on interfaith prayer, and warn others against it, prior to the intervention of the Church?
3. Can the laity act as "watchdogs"* and "bark,"* so as to warn others and alert the legitimate authorities against dangers to the Faith prior to the intervention of authority?
4. I will quote Sarda, " Does the Index of Forbidden Books itself give the title of every forbidden book? Do we not find under the rubric of "General Rules of the Index" certain principles according to which good Catholics should guide themselves in forming their judgment upon books not mentioned in the Index, but which each reader is expected to apply at his own discretion? Of what use would be the rule of faith and morals if in every particular case the faithful could not of themselves make the immediate application, or if they were constantly obliged to consult the Pope or the diocesan pastor? just as the general rule of morality is the law in accordance with which each one squares his own conscience (dictamen practi cum "practical judgment") in making particular applications of this general rule (subject to correction if erroneous), so the general rule of faith, which is the infallible authority of the Church, is and ought to be in consonance with every particular judgment formed in making concrete applications—subject, of course, to correction and retraction in the event of mistake in so applying it. It would be rendering the superior rule of faith useless, absurd and impossible to require the supreme authority of the Church to make its special and immediate application in every case and upon every occasion which calls it forth."
Do you agree that Catholics can make judgments prior to the judgment of the Church, based on the application of doctrine to particular cases, always of course subject to correction?
Example: You are living in the year 1520 in a town in Germany prior to Martin Luther's excommunication. You are personally aware of his heresies, and warn other Catholics to avoid him, as he is a heretic. Are you correct in warning other Catholics about him prior to his excommunication?
|
|