Author Topic: Jansenists (Read 2005 times)

Änσnymσus · « **on:** July 23, 2014, 09:05:29 PM »

Isn't Jansenist a sin.
There are some tradcats that think dancing and drinking are sins

What is flagellation?

poche · « **Reply #1 on:** July 23, 2014, 11:23:53 PM »

Jansenism is a heresy.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #2 on:** July 24, 2014, 06:18:33 AM »

I have no idea why Poche would provide some Judaized secular dictionary definition for flagellation, which lumps religious motivations for the act in with "sadomasochism." Yep, it's an act performed by religious people and sɛҳuąƖ perverts, right Poche? Great definition to give to some poor soul learning about the faith.

Flagellation is a form of self-mortification that involves striking oneself with a rod or small whip. It was used by many great saints - St Francis of Assisi and St Catherine of Siena to name but two. That said, it is a penance which nobody should delve into lightly or without spiritual direction. Talk to a Traditional Catholic priest about what penances and mortifications would be right for you.

As for dancing, opposition to all dancing is Jansenist, and not Catholic. Catholicism is not opposed to dancing per se, but there are many kinds of dancing which are immoral and which Catholics should have nothing to do with. Pope St Pius X condemned the Tango in 1914, for example... and the dance styles that have developed in the years since certainly haven't gotten any chaster.

Use your Sensus Catholicus. If it's a traditional, chaste, wholesome dance, it is fine. If it's the tango, or any of the other varieties of choreographed pseudo-fornication that have developed since, stay away.

And, as always, the safest course around here is to ignore anything with Poche's name attached to it. At least 80% of the time he gives serpents and stones when asked for fish and bread.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #3 on:** July 24, 2014, 11:40:45 AM »

The kind of dancing on "So You Think You Can Dance" is simulated porn.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #4 on:** July 24, 2014, 01:56:09 PM »

Quote from: Guest

There are some tradcats that think dancing and drinking are sins

The Cure of Ars gave sermons condemning the dances going on at his time. He was not a Jansenist.

Frances · « **Reply #5 on:** July 24, 2014, 02:04:21 PM »

:dancing-banana: :confused1:
Would St. John Vianney condemn the dancing banana? Surely not! She's so cute!

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #6 on:** July 24, 2014, 04:47:49 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest

There are some tradcats that think dancing and drinking are sins

The Cure of Ars gave sermons condemning the dances going on at his time. He was not a Jansenist.

To clarify: Dancing and drinking per se are not sinful. To say that they are is Jansenism and, thus, heretical.

Drunkenness and unchaste dances that arouse the passions, however, are sinful.

Condemning these abusive misuses of licit activities like drinking and dancing is not Jansenism, it is proper application of Catholic morality.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #7 on:** July 24, 2014, 05:22:37 PM »

Jansenism's heresy is on grace, essentially being a Catholic Calvinism. It is from that error that their mistakes on dancing and drinking (and other activities) proceed. To say that dancing is sinful is wrong, but I don't think it's actually heretical, nor could it be considered the "heresy of Jansenism."

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #8 on:** July 24, 2014, 05:48:00 PM »

http://www.sensustraditionis.org/webaudio/Sermons/Disk5/Smoking.mp3

poche · « **Reply #9 on:** July 24, 2014, 11:57:53 PM »

Here is what the Catholic Church actually condemns in Jansenism;
•Some of God's commandments are impossible to just men who wish and strive (to keep them) considering the powers they actually have, the grace by which these precepts may become possible is also wanting;
•In the state of fallen nature no one ever resists interior grace;
•To merit, or demerit, in the state of fallen nature we must be free from all external constraint, but not from interior necessity,
•The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing grace for all acts, even for the beginning of faith; but they fell into heresy in pretending that this grace is such that man may either follow or resist it;
•To say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men, is Semipelagianism.
These five propositions were rejected as heretical, the first four absolutely, the fifth if understood in the sense that Christ died only for the predestined. All are implicitly contained in the second, and through it, all are connected with the above-mentioned erroneous conception of the state of innocence and the original fall. If it be true that fallen man never resists interior grace (second proposition), it follows that a just man who violates a commandment of God did not have the grace to observe it. That he therefore transgresses it through inability to fulfil it (first proposition). If, however, he has sinned and thus demerited, it is clear that, to demerit, the liberty of indifference is not requisite, and what is said of demerit must also be said of its correlative, merit (third proposition). On the other hand, if grace is often wanting to the just, since they fall, it is wanting still more to sinners; it is therefore impossible to maintain that the death of Jesus Christ assured to every man the graces necessary for salvation (fifth proposition). If this be so, the Semipelagians were in error in admitting the universal distribution of a grace which may be resisted (fourth proposition).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08285a.htm

Author Topic: Jansenists (Read 2005 times)

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus