Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: gladius_veritatis on December 20, 2010, 08:05:25 PM
-
I shall not go into details at the moment, but my take on things is this:
The present crisis is like unto the death of Christ; i.e., we are now living, in a mystical manner, through the stage of the life of the Church that is analogous to the time Christ spent in the tomb.
He died -- i.e., His Body was separated from His Soul.
Those who wish to safeguard their Faith in these trying days must "break" the law in order to do so. The body (external framework, etc) of the Church has, in a manner, been separated from the soul (the Faith).
To me, anyway, this makes the most sense -- and it is why I do not and cannot act as if all in the Novus are non-Catholic, and is also a big part of why I think the 'anti-una cuм' stance is untenable. Men on all sides of this debate LOVE to throw out entire groups of people, despite the fact that no legal declaration has been made about the present state of things. It is precisely the lack of such a legal, binding declaration which gives rise to the disputes. If/when we have such a declaration, all men of good will shall happily accept it -- and there will be an end to the disputes.
Godspeed :)
-
FWIW, although I am not in favor of the 'anti-una cuм' stance, this does not mean I am 'in favor of', or seek to 'champion' una cuм Masses. I simply mean that I do not think it is reasonable to argue that assistance at such Masses is, in se, mortally sinful (as Fr C and Bps. Dolan and Sanborn do).
Those with whom I disagree have made their cases and I have read them, failing to be convinced. Such is life in these times, but disagreement in such matters need not be cause for substantial conflict (even if such conflict has, in some cases, arisen).
-
I think in this crisis it is fair to assume that the institution of the church has died, but the faith lives on. Now we have to wait for the resurrection.
-
Moral Actions/Obligations
This is seems to be a failed theme,"now we have to wait". The leaders, whom own the properties, have "waited" (on purpose?) for like 20+ years. Does not that smack of the condemned Quietist heresy? We gather around a the pope first, then the Holy Mass (with jurisdiction). Anything else is foreign to the mind of the Church.
-
Interesting. I had heard the term but had not heard it fully explained. Thank you Eamon.
-
Moral Actions/Obligations
This is seems to be a failed theme,"now we have to wait". The leaders, whom own the properties, have "waited" (on purpose?) for like 20+ years. Does not that smack of the condemned Quietist heresy? We gather around a the pope first, then the Holy Mass (with jurisdiction). Anything else is foreign to the mind of the Church.
The heresy is called Quietism. Clearly you know nothing about it...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12608c.htm
Blunder on...
-
gladius:
Men on all sides of this debate LOVE to throw out entire groups of,(Catholic?) people, despite the fact that no legal declaration has been made about the present state of things. It is precisely the lack of such a legal, binding declaration which gives rise to the disputes.
A lot of wisdom in what you say. None of us have the knowledge, right or authority to throw anyone else out.
-
This is not GWS
-
Interesting. I had heard the term but had not heard it fully explained. Thank you Eamon.
My pleasure, although I barely touched upon any of the technical details (not that I am even qualified to do so).
Some sede-vacantists have more or less mocked the thesis, which was originally "formulated" by then-Father, later-Bishop Guérard des Lauriers, O.P. FWIW, he held three doctorates (in philosophy, theology, and mathematics), more or less wrote The Ottaviani Intervention, and assisted in some manner with the formulation of the dogma of the Assumption. While some might argue his thesis is incorrect, it is nonsense to act as if he was a slouch, didn't properly understand (as some have argued) the distinction between matter and form, etc. You may read about him more elsewhere, should you choose, but he was a veritable genius and a truly decent and edifying man.
-
This is not GWS
Thanks for clearing that one up for us, roscoe :)
-
This is seems to be a failed theme,"now we have to wait".
That is one way to look at it, but I think it is an incorrect one.
Wisdom includes knowledge of limitations. When I first came around 11 and 1/2 years ago, I could not fathom why no one had responded to this crisis as the Maccabees had responded during similarly dark days in Israel. If ever someone should have been impaled/disembowled at an altar/table, it was Paul VI -- yet no one did so. God saw fit to allow the abomination, years before I was even born.
When Jesus was in the tomb, Our Lady could have responded any number of ways. She chose retired prayer, and those among the Apostles that had sense joined her.
Sometimes the wisest thing is to wage war, etc., sometimes it is wiser to abide in peace. Each circuмstance is different, as is each man. Even in a time of war, it is NOT good for every man to act the same. Some MUST fight, others should not.
As Jesus' resurrection could not have been aided by ANY human agency, so this crisis, IMO, cannot be resolved by merely human agency. We have helped create the wound; healing it is beyond our power.
NOT the final word...just my two cents at the moment...
Godspeed :)
-
Fr. Dominic Radecki, CMRI gave a sermon a few years ago ( found at http://www.cmri.org/01-fdr-son-of-man.html )
He leads off with a quote from a book (Path of Mary) in the late 1800's:
“The Church appears to be reaching the time when she will be mystically crucified with her Lord. The powers of darkness are evidently allowed a strange power of temptation: ‘It is their hour.’ Even many of Our Lord’s own have fallen away... We see that the Church is visibly afflicted, that the powers of hell are leagued more strongly than ever against her... The Church has already commenced that season of persecution, trial and temptation, in which she will, in herself, represent again the Passion of Our Lord.â€
Pope Pius XII said something similar in his encyclical Mystici Corporis:
"It is the will of Jesus Christ that the whole body of the Church, no less than the individual members, should, resemble Him...What wonder then, if, while on this earth, she like Christ, suffer persecutions, insults and sorrows."
-
Thank you for the quotes, Bazz. Welcome to the forum :)
-
Sede-privationism-
does anyone here beleive that thesisas opposed to Sedevacantism?
I read the thesis, ut am still left :scratchchin:
-
does anyone here beleive that thesis is opposed to Sedevacantism?
It is, and on some fundamental points -- although I have not yet gone into sufficient detail for that to be readily apparent.
-
Though it must be said from the start, that each so-called "-ism" solidly maintains that Benedict XVI is not a true pope.
-
does anyone here beleive that thesis is opposed to Sedevacantism?
It is, and on some fundamental points -- although I have not yet gone into sufficient detail for that to be readily apparent.
Might be we are at the point where they look into the tomb and find it empty. (The chair empty, tomb empty)
-
One can only hope, dear :)
All will be restored soon enough...although I believe there will be much trial and tribulation first...
-
Sede-privationism-
does anyone here beleive that thesisas opposed to Sedevacantism?
I read the thesis, ut am still left :scratchchin:
SO, is anyone here a Sedepri as opposed to a sedevacant?
-
Sede-privationism-
does anyone here beleive that thesisas opposed to Sedevacantism?
I read the thesis, ut am still left :scratchchin:
SO, is anyone here a Sedepri as opposed to a sedevacant?
What would be your question or message to such?
-
Sede-privationism-
does anyone here beleive that thesisas opposed to Sedevacantism?
I read the thesis, ut am still left :scratchchin:
SO, is anyone here a Sedepri as opposed to a sedevacant?
What would be your question or message to such?
Belloc, I'm sure Bazz can explain the difference between the two "true positions".
-
SO, is anyone here a Sedepri as opposed to a sedevacant?
I am, more or less. That is why I started the thread.
-
Sede-privationism-
does anyone here beleive that thesisas opposed to Sedevacantism?
I read the thesis, ut am still left :scratchchin:
SO, is anyone here a Sedepri as opposed to a sedevacant?
What would be your question or message to such?
Bazz, do you have some sort of objection to the general term sedevacantism?
-
Belloc, I'm sure Bazz can explain the difference between the two "true positions".
What is your source for that statement?
Please don't volunteer me. Do you have an opinion on the difference?
-
SO, is anyone here a Sedepri as opposed to a sedevacant?
I am, more or less. That is why I started the thread.
can you fill me in-PM me if you want as opposed to posting or, post....
-
Belloc, I'm sure Bazz can explain the difference between the two "true positions".
What is your source for that statement?
It is an opinion based on what you've posted here at Cathinfo.
Please don't volunteer me.
I was merely expressing my opinion that you might be able to explain the difference.
Do you have an opinion on the difference?
Yes, but I'll remain silent. :wink:
-
It is an opinion based on what you've posted here at Cathinfo.
Nice to see you can be "sure" with just an opinion and without a source.
-
It is an opinion based on what you've posted here at Cathinfo.
Nice to see you can be "sure" with just an opinion and without a source.
Saying "I'm sure" does not necessarily mean I'm expressing a certainty. But I'm sure you understand that, don't you Bazz? :rolleyes:
-
It is an opinion based on what you've posted here at Cathinfo.
Nice to see you can be "sure" with just an opinion and without a source.
Saying "I'm sure" does not necessarily mean I'm expressing a certainty. But I'm sure you understand that, don't you Bazz? :rolleyes:
The definition of sure is certain.
-
It is an opinion based on what you've posted here at Cathinfo.
Nice to see you can be "sure" with just an opinion and without a source.
Saying "I'm sure" does not necessarily mean I'm expressing a certainty. But I'm sure you understand that, don't you Bazz? :rolleyes:
The definition of sure is certain.
Bazz, when somebody casually says, "I'm sure" or "I'm certain", they don't usually mean that all error is excluded. They will usually downgrade to "opinion" if pressed. :rolleyes:
-
It is an opinion based on what you've posted here at Cathinfo.
Nice to see you can be "sure" with just an opinion and without a source.
Saying "I'm sure" does not necessarily mean I'm expressing a certainty. But I'm sure you understand that, don't you Bazz? :rolleyes:
The definition of sure is certain.
Bazz, when somebody casually says, "I'm sure" or "I'm certain", they don't usually mean that all error is excluded. They will usually downgrade to "opinion" if pressed. :rolleyes:
The more I see you write (yes, both "you" and "SJB"), the more I see how much of a liberal/modernistic influence you have been infected by.
"All error is excluded"? As in "infallible"? So, you are never infallible and therefore never sure or certain? Perhaps on the hypothetical possibility of error everyone should doubt their own baptism and everyone else's because priests are not infallible! How about even though a pope is infallible, it never has an infallible effect on anyone because everyone's senses are not infallible in perception and comprehension! This is all stuff beloved by modernists.
-
It is an opinion based on what you've posted here at Cathinfo.
Nice to see you can be "sure" with just an opinion and without a source.
Saying "I'm sure" does not necessarily mean I'm expressing a certainty. But I'm sure you understand that, don't you Bazz? :rolleyes:
The definition of sure is certain.
Bazz, when somebody casually says, "I'm sure" or "I'm certain", they don't usually mean that all error is excluded. They will usually downgrade to "opinion" if pressed. :rolleyes:
The more I see you write (yes, both "you" and "SJB"), the more I see how much of a liberal/modernistic influence you have been infected by.
Would that be the same liberal and modernistic influence that allows you to avoid facing reality?
"All error is excluded"? As in "infallible"?
No, as in fear of error being excluded. True certainty.
So, you are never infallible and therefore never sure or certain? Perhaps on the hypothetical possibility of error everyone should doubt their own baptism and everyone else's because priests are not infallible! How about even though a pope is infallible, it never has an infallible effect on anyone because everyone's senses are not infallible in perception and comprehension! This is all stuff beloved by modernists.
Degrees of certainty, possibly? Having moral certainty does not require having the charism of infallibility.