Author Topic: Profound question (Read 1531 times)

Matthew · « **on:** February 11, 2010, 09:18:19 PM »

Jack is a layman. He has thoughts and questions about various topics, including the Crisis in the Church and the status of the current Pope.

He asks his traditional priest about the Pope, etc., who gives him an answer to his question. However, the question doesn't satisfy him, humanly speaking.

A voice inside him says, "That doesn't answer the question." The voice also says, "I seem to understand the situation better than this priest does."

Question: Who is that voice? The voice of his Catholic sense just bursting to get out, or...

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** February 11, 2010, 09:20:16 PM »

I think the voice is the devil.

Because we, as laymen, are not called to enter into profound matters of theology.

To enter into such matters properly, with minimal chance of error -- being led astray by pride, desire to sleep in on Sunday, etc. -- , we would have to STUDY theology, not just read a book or two. That would take 3 years minimum, which is what priests spend. Even that is considered a START. Priests whose office is to teach, etc. will study a lot more than 3 years.

If Jack simply followed his priest, trusting that the priest knew best, God would not hold him accountable. If Jack were objectively right, the PRIEST might be held accountable...

That is where some sedevacantists get things wrong.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2010, 08:36:25 PM »

Which priest? You could go to ten different priests today and get ten different answers. That's precisely the problem.

Nor are laymen prohibited from using their intellects. I'm sorry to say this, but half of the Traditional priests I know couldn't theologize their way out of a wet paper bag.

Are laymen to be reduced to the state of unthinking drooling morons?

That sounds a lot like the drivel I heard while I was at the seminary, which was also extended to how women should not think at all but should be told what to think by their husbands. There's something less than completely human and, frankly, very cultlike and troubling about those kinds of attitudes.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2010, 08:38:19 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

That is where some sedevacantists get things wrong.

How do you know that you're not getting it wrong, since you too are an unqualified layman? You should go ask Father Cekada what he thinks about sedevacantism and submit your intellect and will to his judgment.

Caminus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2010, 08:41:40 PM »

Because "sedevacantism" is an contingent, particular "opinion" about a singular fact and as such goes well beyond what the Catholic faith teaches and demands we practice.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2010, 08:50:00 PM »

Really it all depends on who Jack is.

If Jack has not been blessed with a keen intellect nor has been educated, then Jack can just trust the priest and will not be held accountable.

If Jack happens to be intelligent and well read, and knows that when Father X comes along and tells him that, say, artificial birth control is OK under certain circuмstances, he's completely full of it, and Jack decides that since Father X said so he can get away with it, then Jack too is held accountable. Jack KNOWS better.

Sometimes, Matthew, laymen CAN know better than their priests.

roscoe · « **Reply #6 on:** February 13, 2010, 08:50:10 PM »

There is no such thing as 'sede vacantism'-- nice try C.

I defy any person on Earth to show an incident in Church history where this is mentioned.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #7 on:** February 13, 2010, 09:01:11 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

If Jack simply followed his priest, trusting that the priest knew best, God would not hold him accountable. If Jack were objectively right, the PRIEST might be held accountable...

Such a course of "inaction" would have led countless men to remain in the Novus, post-V2.

When I first realized something was rotten in Denmark, I did not even approach my local priest (an older monsignor from Ireland). Why? Because it was clear he had gone along with the very thing that was making my gut say, "Go out of this place..."

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2010, 09:08:06 PM »

To be fair, there are SOME laymen on ALL sides of this debate who understand (at least SOME) things better than SOME priests on ALL sides.

Yes, part of the sacerdotal office is to know whereof you speak, and to continue your studies throughout life -- but not ALL do as they should, nor are all necessarily possessed of a great intellect. We would not have ended up in this mess if every priest zealously and perseveringly fulfilled his duties. [Which is NOT to excuse laymen, for we, too, are rather imperfect in fulfilling our own duties.]

roscoe · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2010, 09:08:48 PM »

To be clear, It seems C agrees with me that there is no such thing as 'sede vacantism'.

This does not mean there is no such thing as an anti-pope. C'
s mind is locked in a paradigm that cannot answer the question-- Is there such thing as an anti-pope?

008 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 15, 2010, 05:35:50 PM »

Quote

Question: Who is that voice? The voice of his Catholic sense just bursting to get out, or...

Trick question.

Humility defers to the priest, as many here do to Bishop Dolan and Pius XII and St. Thomas on EES.

But if one does in fact know more than the priest it should only be expressed if the priest is open to it, as many good priests are. If he is not, silence is the better way. No murmuring against the priest...

Now give the quote which is I expect the trap...?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #11 on:** February 15, 2010, 06:38:40 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Jack is a layman. He has thoughts and questions about various topics, including the Crisis in the Church and the status of the current Pope.

You make up the end of your story and then paint a picture leading up to it. You do not argue to the point but try to pin prideful thinking as being responsible for coming to the truth you do not want to accept.

A person gathers a list of all the validly ordained priests he can get the e-mail address of. He asks each and every one about the topic of SV.

Out of those who respond he asks them why they have come to the conclusion they have come to.

He then sorts through all the answers to those questions and weighs the pros and cons. Then he weighs them again. The he writes objections to both sides of the issue to the Priests that hold one position or another. That is, he sees the Priests reasoning behind his answer and raises the objection(s) that comes to mind. He does this same thing to the Priests that hold the opposite position.

He weighs all the answers. Then he weighs them again. The answer is becoming clearer and clearer in regards to the consistency in the answers and the reasoning behind those answers among those who hold one position and the inconsistency and lack of logic of those (who are otherwise great at teaching the faith on any other topic) who hold the other position. Hmm.

This scenario is a bit different than the one you paint about the prideful thinker who thinks himself outside the Church is it not. A different scenario than the one who goes with the most convenient answer as well. No? I don't expect a response but would find what you would have to say to that interesting.

Anyway, my story has not ended yet. The guy who has asked all these Priests all these questions and has played devil's advocate against their response regarding both position and has seen their reasoning (or lack thereof) behind their conclusion, does not stop there. He reads all the works on the topic (pro and con). Reads them again. And again. Plays devils advocate in his mind on both positions again. Asks more questions. By this time he is already 99% of the answer but wants to make 100% before jumping out on a limb and publically proclaiming the position for himself for the sake of souls and for the sake of the Church (as realizing the root cause of the problem will enable us to do proper surgery rather than putting a bandage on a cancer).

Your story was cute. But like I said. It does not work.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #12 on:** February 15, 2010, 06:48:30 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

To be fair, there are SOME laymen on ALL sides of this debate who understand (at least SOME) things better than SOME priests on ALL sides.

Yes, part of the sacerdotal office is to know whereof you speak, and to continue your studies throughout life -- but not ALL do as they should, nor are all necessarily possessed of a great intellect. We would not have ended up in this mess if every priest zealously and perseveringly fulfilled his duties. [Which is NOT to excuse laymen, for we, too, are rather imperfect in fulfilling our own duties.]

WOW GV I had not read all the posts before making my post. This is a most awesome point! I believe to be true but have not had to courage to say it. Some laymen that outshine many Priests (on this issue) in regards to both their learning and their logic would be John Lane and John Daly. I would also include Griff Ruby and Mario Derkson in this list.

This is not much of a compliment on the priests who speak to the issue often but I feel I am not being prideful when I say that even I (on this issue) seem to "know more" be more open to truth than they are. I don't know more than they and I am certainly not more learned. I just see what the Church has taught on the subject and accept it.