|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 29, 2016 13:13:15 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. I have dodged nothing. You asked the question in regard to the liturgy, and I said this subject is not about the liturgy and the name of the pope. But it does pertain to the principle, if followed, we'll lead one to discerning it. Who? Potentially, everyone. Though priests who guide the faithful have the biggest obligation. Re: Chapter 32, we'll see what happens after you answer Pacelli's questions.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 29, 2016 13:27:24 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. More questions for Voxx? Go for it. You claimed that my definition is not Opinionism. Don't turn around now and claim that this discussion is on Opinionism. I already said that you should call it a "problem" and continue on with the substance of that problem. Leave "opinionism" out of it at this point, which means leaving out una-cum. I didn't start a new thread here just to be redundant and talk about opinionism all over again.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 29, 2016 13:34:00 GMT -5
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. More questions for Voxx? Go for it. You claimed that my definition is not Opinionism. Don't turn around now and claim that this discussion is on Opinionism. I already said that you should call it a "problem" and continue on with the substance of that problem. Leave "opinionism" out of it at this point, which means leaving out una-cum. I didn't start a new thread here just to be redundant and talk about opinionism all over again. The title of this thread is " Opinionism a Definition and Example." Have you forgotten that?
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 29, 2016 13:50:13 GMT -5
More questions for Voxx? Go for it. You claimed that my definition is not Opinionism. Don't turn around now and claim that this discussion is on Opinionism. I already said that you should call it a "problem" and continue on with the substance of that problem. Leave "opinionism" out of it at this point, which means leaving out una-cum. I didn't start a new thread here just to be redundant and talk about opinionism all over again. The title of this thread is " Opinionism a Definition and Example." Have you forgotten that? Of course I didn't, but apparently you did forget that you claimed it really isn't about opinionism. I already said said we should continue on with addressing the "problem". If you don't like the name I gave it, fine. I don't really care about the name. I was attempting to comply with what Voxx asked of me. I will start another thread so that we won't waste any more time about this.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 29, 2016 13:58:47 GMT -5
Creedwater wrote:
I never said that. Do you just make things up that sound good to you? Where did you get that? It was not from my words, yet you say I made the claim!
Here is what I said:
And:
And:
And:
Some questions: 1. You never answered my question above in the last quote. Did you miss it or are you just evading? 2. If you are going to make up your own unapproved term, separate from Opinionism, is the definition you used in the OP all you are offering? Don't you think "problem" is a bit vague for a new term to describe your new idea?
3. Lastly, why did you name the thread "Opinionism..." and then proceed to discuss your new term and its definition? In light of that, why did you name the thread "Opinionism."
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 29, 2016 14:15:53 GMT -5
Creedwater wrote: I never said that. Do you just make things up that sound good to you? Where did you get that? It was not from my words, yet you say I made the claim! Here is what I said: And: And: And: Some questions: 1. You never answered my question above in the last quote. Did you miss it or are you just evading? 2. If you are going to make up your own unapproved term, separate from Opinionism, is the definition you used in the OP all you are offering? Don't you think "problem" is a bit vague for a new term to describe your new idea? 3. Lastly, why did you name the thread "Opinionism..." and then proceed to discuss your new term and its definition? In light of that, why did you name the thread "Opinionism." 1. Ask it again. 2. New problems don't all need new terms. "Problem" is a description of a problem that has no specific term. Are you saying that a new problem cannot arise without having a new term for it? 3. If you believe that you understand Bp. Sanborn's Opinionism article, and say you don't know if my definition fits it or not, then either you must claim mine is not opinionism, OR that you really don't understand his article, OR that my definition fits, OR that you don't understand what I wrote. Choose.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 29, 2016 15:07:23 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) Of Course I mayExample, 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? Of Course I may2. 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) Of Course I mayIn 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? Of Course I may3. 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? Of Course I may4. 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? Of Course they mayExample: 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?Of course you are correct to do so....So I may add a question of my own...are the Laity required by canon law or moral law to do any of the above?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 29, 2016 15:12:00 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) Of Course I mayExample, 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? Of Course I may2. 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) Of Course I mayIn 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? Of Course I may3. 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? Of Course I may4. 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? Of Course they mayExample: 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?Of course you are correct to do so....So I may add a question of my own...are the Laity required by canon law or moral law to do any of the above?I had no doubts, Clearwater owes you an apology for his rashness.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 29, 2016 15:15:06 GMT -5
Youll notice I answered "I may"...the question is am I required to?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 29, 2016 15:28:30 GMT -5
Youll notice I answered "I may"...the question is am I required to? It all depends on the situation, correcting people when you perceive it will do no good may do more harm than good.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 29, 2016 15:39:34 GMT -5
Clearwater wrote:
1. I already asked it, it's up to you to answer it. If you don't, then the record will show your evasion.
2. Yes, a new idea needs a new term, otherwise it is nothing more than a vague undefined and unnamed idea. Is that how you discuss theology? New ideas at odds with the Faith need to be understood using approved terms and sourced according to approved sources.
3. I do understand Sanborn, and I also understand you. I want you to explain yourself, as you are introducing a new idea to Catholics, just as Sanborn has done. I am not sure if your trying to come up with your own term and idea, or are you just trying to follow Sanborn. I find the whole matter bizarre as you are using your own definition in a thread you started called "Opinionism..." and then have been reluctant to give the forum an answer as to whether you are espousing "Opinionism" as the thread is titled or your new idea called "problem."
If you want to only talk about your new use of the term "problem", why use Sanborns term? At the very least you are creating confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 29, 2016 18:26:56 GMT -5
Clearwater wrote: 1. I already asked it, it's up to you to answer it. If you don't, then the record will show your evasion. 2. Yes, a new idea needs a new term, otherwise it is nothing more than a vague undefined and unnamed idea. Is that how you discuss theology? New ideas at odds with the Faith need to be understood using approved terms and sourced according to approved sources. 3. I do understand Sanborn, and I also understand you. I want you to explain yourself, as you are introducing a new idea to Catholics, just as Sanborn has done. I am not sure if your trying to come up with your own term and idea, or are you just trying to follow Sanborn. I find the whole matter bizarre as you are using your own definition in a thread you started called "Opinionism..." and then have been reluctant to give the forum an answer as to whether you are espousing "Opinionism" as the thread is titled or your new idea called "problem." If you want to only talk about your new use of the term "problem", why use Sanborns term? At the very least you are creating confusion. 1. If I knew what question you asked, I would not have asked you to repeat it. Sorry, but I don't what what question you are referring to. 2. There are lots of new problems in the world. Can you give us some examples of new terms? 3. If you understand me, and Bp. Sanborn, then you logically MUST know whether I was successful with my definition. If I was not successful, then you hold my definition is not opinionism.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 29, 2016 19:51:02 GMT -5
ok well this circled wagon train is over...at least for the CC machine..... Quo usque tandem abutere patentia nostra?
|
|