Has anyone had the experience of looking up to someone and thinking the best of him only to be disappointed in him over and over again until you finally realize they are not what they are cracked up to be? I have experienced this in the traditional movement especially. It can be disappointing when the one you look up to, in all practicality, thinks of you as his enemy, at least based upon his actions and words towards and about you. We see this when people will go out of their way to give you a dirty look, or repute motives to your actions that you have not even dreamed of, such as staged objections such as the brothers Dimond would post. I have stated over and over again that I am not sure which side is correct but the objection is hurled.
Gee, a debate with a friend with whom you agree, and with whom you have been single-minded and incorrigible in serious theological error: sounds like Pete n' Mike Dimond debating each other...
Hmm. Perhaps such argumentation would be helpful to those with a higher intellectual capacity than that of my own.
Regardless I refrain from lowering myself to responding in kind and with the charitableness in which it was intended though the temptation has certainly been provided. Nor will I try to correct the person charitably, not because I would claim that would be like casting pearls before swine or dogs, but simply because past tries at the same have failed miserably.
I have heard it said that forums can be "a pathway to Hell". This could certainly be the case if it takes away from your prayer life, authentic study of the faith and your duties to family and job. It can also be true if you lower yourself to the level of your attackers who are intent on "making you look bad" or "disreputable" through all sorts of strange and absurd in the extreme allegations in the hopes that one of them stick.
Just to clarify, without lowering myself to the level of my attacker, I legitimately post objections to Griff.
I objected to him in regards to feeneyism, una cuм, and his thesis regarding the retirement of Paul 6 in 1964. He convinced me about the errors of feeneyism, gave me pause regarding his Paul 6 theory which I cannot refute and made very serious and valid points in regards to the una cuм controversy. Up until this point I was not sure either way on jurisdiction, but after reading his latest on the issue I can say that I am leaning on his side now. His arguments stand on their own merits; personal attacks from those who disagree do not sway me to his side but the truth of the visible apostolicity of the Catholic Church. No "unexplainable mystery", the Church is right where she appears to be, with our traditional Bishops.
His series on ordinary jurisdiction:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/12Sep/sep18str.htmShows that the traditional Catholic bishops were consecrated by bishops with the apostolic mission and is in accordance with the doctrine that they at least have the legal or implicit will of the Holy See to the point where denying this, insisting that the apostolic Church is in the NO or the woods, does far more harm to the doctrine, even on the face of it, than forcing the doctrine to mean that the Church has vanished. Defending what seems obvious, that our traditional bishops are the visible hierarchy with every bit as much authority that bishops had between interregnums of the past (even though, in our case, no pope explicitly gave his approval) would seem obvious, that our Catholic bishops are Catholic bishops in every sense of the word.
The apostolic mission has been handed on, at the very least, with the legal and or implicit will of the Roman See and as pointed out by Griff, even more than that:
But back in 1964 the organization Paul VI ran was still the Church, and the relevant decisions and changes made in public cooperation with all the nominal Church leaders (in the Vatican II Council), their personal interior status is not relevant to the legality of the opening Vatican II docuмents. But once again, it is Lumen Gentium, the last identifiable official docuмent of the Catholic Church, the one that defined the Vatican-run organization as being not the Church but merely some other sort of body within portions of which portions of the Church would do Her subsisting (thereby defining into existence a new and parallel organization), that also comes into play here.
It is now time for me to talk about a different part of Lumen Gentium than that which I have previously expounded upon in various places. I refer to paragraphs 21 (second part) and 22 (first part). Let us start with what the paragraphs actually say (I include the first part of 21 lest anyone accuse me of quoting out of context):
21. In the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Supreme High Priest, is present in the midst of those who believe. For sitting at the right hand of God the Father, He is not absent from the gathering of His high priests, but above all through their excellent service He is preaching the word of God to all nations, and constantly administering the sacraments of faith to those who believe, by their paternal functioning. He incorporates new members in His Body by a heavenly regeneration, and finally by their wisdom and prudence He directs and guides the People of the New Testament in their pilgrimage toward eternal happiness. These pastors, chosen to shepherd the Lord's flock of the elect, are servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God, to whom has been assigned the bearing of witness to the Gospel of the grace of God, and the ministration of the Spirit and of justice in glory.
For the discharging of such great duties, the apostles were enriched by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and they passed on this spiritual gift to their helpers by the imposition of hands, and it has been transmitted down to us in Episcopal consecration. And the Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church's liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry. But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college. For from the tradition, which is expressed especially in liturgical rites and in the practice of both the Church of the East and of the West, it is clear that, by means of the imposition of hands and the words of consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is so conferred, and the sacred character so impressed, that bishops in an eminent and visible way sustain the roles of Christ Himself as Teacher, Shepherd and High Priest, and that they act in His person. Therefore it pertains to the bishops to admit newly elected members into the Episcopal body by means of the sacrament of Orders.
22. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace, and also the councils assembled together, in which more profound issues were settled in common, the opinion of the many having been prudently considered, both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecuмenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimated also in the practice, introduced in ancient times, of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.
The second part of 22 and beyond goes more specifically into the topic of the role of bishops with respect to the pope in the context of ecuмenical councils, to which the first part of 22 (quoted above) begins to set the tone. Again, I call attention most specifically to the parts I have put in bold, which state that the bare fact of an episcopal consecration of itself is sufficient to convey not only the sacrament and power of orders which is in itself an office of providing sanctification to souls, but also with it the offices of teaching and governing! All further conditions (apart from what is intrinsically necessary per the doctrine (as referenced by the phrase "can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college") are hereby removed. That is to say, the sum total of all the positive law which the Church has developed over the course of the centuries has been, with the official promulgation of this docuмent, entirely swept away! And in its place there is the new positive law that the granting of jurisdiction, of the canonical mission, is itself to be united to the conferring of the final degree of Holy Orders. So now, the bare fact of an episcopal consecration alone is there decreed to be sufficient to convey the apostolic mission of the Church, together with all manner of jurisdiction, faculties, etc. as is needed to complete the Divine Mission.
And just in case someone might be contemplating some sort of objection to the effect that the existing procedures (having the pope personally appoint and approve each bishop) are merely being "assumed" or "presumed" in this, one must first note the wording that makes it clear that the consecration is enough, without reservation or condition, save that which ties to a bishop's doctrinal need for his authority to come, whether explicitly and personally, or implicitly and legally only, from the pope. That they truly intended to tear out all of the Church's positive law that further regulated and tightened up the process of selecting and appointing bishops is also clear from their "ecuмenical" intention to regard the separated Eastern schismatic churches as being their equal (the other "lung" of the Church!) and of having their own true and life-giving jurisdiction over their flocks. Such steps taken as the infamous Balamand agreement would be unacceptable and impossible unless they truly believed the separated and schismatic and popeless-by-design East Orthodox to be their actual peers and brothers and co-workers in the Lord's harvest. ---
The contrast between those I debate (yes legitimately, though I thought that was obvious before the strange accusation was hurled) with, who actually know me, and one person on this forum, who does not know me but pretends to know my inner motives on things is incredible. It was my hope that one who reputes himself to be an authentic Catholic could act as one during exchanges, but I indeed have been proven wrong on such a hope as he instead prefers personal attacks along with, and sometimes, instead of, charitable constructive criticism.
If you have any doubt watch for his response to this, and read it carefully, look for charitable “corrections” and notice the personal attacks and see which of his own words falls into which category. I will not do this myself to prove myself correct. I will probably not read his response which shows the merit of winning souls with honey instead of vinegar. He will suggest that he is no worse than me perhaps, but I have been and am being as charitable as possible in my dealings. I do not get personally angry at others who disagree with me on this forum. I do not accuse them of strange things such as being like the Dimonds or suggest anyone is inventing objections in order to appear to disagree when they really do not. Constructive debate does not encompass guessing the inner motives of others. This should be obvious. You argue to the point not to the man. Arguing to the point is saying “I believe you are wrong because of this, this and this”. Arguing to the man is saying “You are wrong because you are you.”
I have lived by the axiom "hope for the best but expect the worst" so you will not be disappointed. And never to put your hope in any living human being but I catch myself expecting more from traditional Catholics, a vast majority live up to that expectation, but sometimes, those who appear to be "the best of the best" fall far short and make the N.O.'s, in regards to basic civility, look like the greatest Saints in the history of the Church.
Here is a response to Griff (starting under quoted section below), where I read in the response from the accusation hurler (not in this forum, because I tend to avoid reading emotional tirades and personal attacks) that I was staging false objections as the Dimond's would. This appears to be an attack that appeals to the emotions as being labeled in the category of the Dimonds is not intended to be a complement by any stretch.
Some would say to such accusation hurlers "Good luck because that is all you are running on.” But I admit that such accusation hurlers could be in a state of sanctifying grace but merely overly-emotional and unable to deal with those who dare to disagree with them. Or perhaps they think they get a point across better by personal attacks. One can only guess I suppose.
Again you have seen how Griff has set me straight with charitable corrections in our debate. My other closest friends and writers have done the same.
> Actually, Mr. Cain will indeed be in trouble once the clergy get wind of what you guys are actually doing. I hope you understand the serious ramifications of this, and how much you are damaging the credibility of DailyCatholic.org.
Actually, “they” (the clergy) already know what Michael Cain is publishing and they are to a man one and all OK with it. Otherwise, he (and we through him, our ourselves directly) would hear of it from them.
It’s very simple, and I didn’t need Lumen Gentium or anything else to know this much as I made these observations back well before that discovery, and this is the root of the hope that I have. It is not arrogance but Faith. I believe:
1) That God made certainly promises regarding His Church,
2) That the promises that God made to His Church are practical realities realized in actual ecclesial persons,
3) That such persons can be found (as expected) and are found,
4) In the traditional Catholic communities and orders and congregations.
It is therefore the basic dogmas of Faith that something at least very much along the lines of what I have since discovered absolutely has to be true.
Ergo, all attempts to define away the promises of God, or to deny that any discoverable reality need actually follow from them, or to deprive one and all of the only possible authentically Catholic expressions of the Faith as hierarchy, can only amount to mere sophistries calculated to destroy the Faith of anyone who aspires to follow the true Faith seriously.
These sophistries (as I have examined one and all in as much detail as has ever been publicly presented) have one and all proven to be fully on the level of the sophistries by which Feeney followers endeavor to prove by their copious misquotes that all persons who have died not baptized in water have gone to Hell. They may look convincing to the uninitiated, but by their nature can have no substance without denying the Faith itself. And even here shows once again, none of them really have anything to say. I seem to have been the first of their little group to actually look up and read Van Noort in detail and find out what is really said instead of what one might otherwise have gleaned from any number of carefully selected quotes made so as to ascribe to him the very contrary of what he teaches.