Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on January 06, 2020, 12:21:36 PM
-
I am posting this again, since it was derailed in the other thread.
I’m sure many will find it helpful:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/ronconte.com/2018/06/05/what-heribert-jone-wrote-in-moral-theology/amp/ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/ronconte.com/2018/06/05/what-heribert-jone-wrote-in-moral-theology/amp/)
-
It is certainly legitimate to have a problem with Jone's Moral Theology.
-
I thought this wasn't supposed to be posted again after the other thread was locked.
-
I thought this wasn't supposed to be posted again after the other thread was locked.
I wasn't that explicit. I was really just trying to break up a major brawl.
-
It is certainly legitimate to have a problem with Jone's Moral Theology.
I never said it wasn't legitimate to disagree with that particular opinion.
What I have a serious issue with is imputing mortal sin to those who happen to accept that opinion. I cited St. Alphonsus himself, who taught that Catholics may, without sin, act on any "probable" opinion (e.g. something which is taught in approved text by theologians).
In addition, I was seeking an actual rational argument for why the position is wrong.
SeanJohnson just kept quoting St. Alphonsus over and over again.
I explained why his analogy with fornication fails, and why his argument was mistaken ... omnis comparatio claudicat.
Instead of rebuttal to my argument about why he was mistaken, Sean kept reposting the same quote over and over again, began to escalate into claiming that I held St. Alphonsus in "contempt", referring to me as Ladislaus the Sodomite, and then claiming that I was condoning ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.
He also kept appealing to his Novus Ordo source, Conte, and I pointed out how Conte was misunderstanding and misrepresenting Jone.
I am perfectly willing to entertain actual arguments for why this position of Jone is incorrect. But to denounce this text as garbage due to disagreeing with one opinion is unacceptable. This text had Church approval in multiple translations into various languages. It was intended as a guide for Confessors ... a handy pocket manual that did not make arguments but was summarizing the state of the question currently held in his day.
My BIGGER problem with SeanJohnson is his regular imputation of mortal sin to those following opinions which have ecclesiastical approval. This was NOT the first time. I call this out as a bad fruit of R&R, the substitution of Church authority with the private judgment of SeanJohnson.
I too disagree with Pius XII's approval of NFP in his Allocution to Midwives. Nevertheless, if I were a priest, I would not deny absolution to anyone practicing NFP under the conditions stipulated by theologians as meeting the "grave reason" requirement of Pius XII. I am not in a position of imposing my own opinion on the consciences of others. I might try to persuade someone that it's wrong, but that's as far as it goes.
I asked SeanJohnson to answer this question:
If you were a priest, would you refuse absolution to someone who engaged in this practice even if they considered it not to be mortal sin based on an appeal to Jone. He did not answer.
-
At the risk of being called impure names by Sean, Jone was an approved theologian by the Church prior to Vatican II. You may disagree with some of his positions, but, as Ladislaus correctly points out, according to Saint Alphonsus, he is allowed to be followed. Frankly, I think he’s wrong about the “S” thing (that it’s only a venial sin in certain cases) and I certainly prefer to follow Saint Alphonsus, but he can, in fact, be followed without scruple.
-
I am posting this again, since it was derailed in the other thread.
I’m sure many will find it helpful:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/ronconte.com/2018/06/05/what-heribert-jone-wrote-in-moral-theology/amp/ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/ronconte.com/2018/06/05/what-heribert-jone-wrote-in-moral-theology/amp/)
Conte opens the article by begging the question:
There are many things wrong with that statement. How can a husband not have a “sodomitic intention” when he is in fact committing sodomy?
He assumes that the person is committing sodomy. Jone denies this of the activity in question. So this egregious example of petitio principii ("begging the question") is an example of what you get from Novus Ordo "theologians" who have no formal training in Catholic logic, philosophy, and theology.
Then he continues in the article with this same mistake, claiming that Jone contradicts himself ... which Jone simply does not. This allegation of contradiction is based on his initial mistake of having begged the question. When Jone is speaking of the wife not being able to actively participate in it, he's referring to ACTUAL sodomy ... as defined by Jone (and misunderstood by Conte).
Consequently, all of Conte's article is nonsense. There may be other arguments against this practice, but none of them appear in this screed by Conte.
-
I happen to have this book. It was imprimatur'ed by Hugh C. Boyle, the Bishop of Pittsburgh in 1945. Do lay folk now need to question books on faith and morals that were officially approved by the Church before Vatican II?
-
I know I’m going to get blasted for this, but I think the problem with Sean and others who hold the R&R position, is the fact that they are so used to defying what they believe is legitimate authority that they have no problem with lessening the status of the pre Vatican II authorities. I see this as a very serious problem in the future when we do have a true pope. Are the R&R adherents going to sift through his acts and laws and believe that they are themselves the final decision makers? Most of us who hold the sedevacantist position don’t have that problem. There is a line that we draw. If the person is a true pope we simply follow him, no questions asked.
I will move this post to another thread......sorry for the derailment.
-
Conte opens the article by begging the question:
He assumes that the person is committing sodomy. Jone denies this of the activity in question. So this egregious example of petitio principii ("begging the question") is an example of what you get from Novus Ordo "theologians" who have no formal training in Catholic logic, philosophy, and theology.
Then he continues in the article with this same mistake, claiming that Jone contradicts himself ... which Jone simply does not. This allegation of contradiction is based on his initial mistake of having begged the question. When Jone is speaking of the wife not being able to actively participate in it, he's referring to ACTUAL sodomy ... as defined by Jone (and misunderstood by Conte).
Consequently, all of Conte's article is nonsense. There may be other arguments against this practice, but none of them appear in this screed by Conte.
I prefer not to read this stuff again, but from what I remember, Jone differentiates between perfect “S” and imperfect “S”.
-
Then Conte goes on this diatribe:
I would also like to point out that the entire book “Moral Theology” by Rev. Heribert Jone is a series of unsupported claims. The book is a long chain of baseless assertions, with no theological arguments of any length or substance. He just tells you what he thinks is moral or immoral. He usually provides nothing to support these assertions, not even a bare citation. We are supposed to take his word for all of this. So his book titled “Moral Theology” actually contains very little theology. Is the book “highly regarded”? I don’t think so. Is the publication of the book by TAN Books and Publishers proof that the book is orthodox or reliable? That is a laughable claim. A commercial publishing company cannot exercise the Magisterium, and they do not have the role to decide what is and is not orthodox teaching.
Uhm, Conte, would you please bother to read the PREFACE of Jone's book? He admits that he is not making any arguments, but is listing in concise format the prevailing theological opinion on every point in the book. All of the Traditional moral theology manuals had been FILLED with such "argument", and Jone deliberately and intentionally avoids these due to the purpose of the book ... to provide a relatively CONCISE (vs. 10,000-page 5-volume moral theology treatises) reference manual. It's like taking the 10,000-page Oxford English dictionary and distilling it into a little 200-page pocket dictionary; to accomplish this, one must remove all the lengthy citations to places in English literature where any given word appears. This book was evaluated and approved by Church authorities ... in several language translations. Uhm, no, Conte, its publication by TAN does not give it any credibility ... but have you forgotten about (or just ignored) the multiple ecclesiastical Imprimaturs and Nihil obstats that this book received ... in multiple languages. Conte must not remember how the Church used to do things. Theologians could not simply self-publish stuff or go rogue; they had to get ecclesiastical approval for their works. Yes, that's a foreign concept to the Novus Ordo mind. Nowadays, any ignoramus jackass can host his own theological blog. In fact, in days when there wasn't this vacuum of authority, most of us would likely be forbidden from publicly (in this forum) attempting to represent Church teaching.
This here is just for the 1961 printing in English. Every edition in every language had to have this set of ecclesiastical approvals:
(https://i.ibb.co/HHHb14k/joneimprimatur.png)
-
I know I’m going to get blasted for this, but I think the problem with Sean and others who hold the R&R position, is the fact that they are so used to defying what they believe is legitimate authority that they have no problem with lessening the status of the pre Vatican II authorities. I see this as a very serious problem in the future when we do have a true pope. Are the R&R adherents going to sift through his acts and laws and believe that they are themselves the final decision makers? Most of us who hold the sedevacantist position don’t have that problem. There is a line that we draw. If the person is a true pope we simply follow him, no questions asked.
I will move this post to another thread......sorry for the derailment.
No derailment at all. THIS PRECISELY is my big problem with Sean. I'm not particularly over-concerned about this question in particular ... as it has no actual impact on my own life (despite what Sean implied). I am troubled by the imputation of sin to those who follow opinions taught in Church-approved books.
There is MUCH BIGGER question here than the particulars of this issue ... which I myself do not relish going into in this kind of detail. THIS HERE is my biggest problem with R&R. In one sense, I could hardly care less whether Bergoglio is a heretic. But these PRINCIPLES of Catholics' attitude toward Church authority are absolutely critical. More and More R&R draws people toward a non-Catholic mindset.
-
It is wrong for any catholic to hold any theologian up as infallible, whether one worships +Bellarmine (on the papal question) or +Alphonsus (all moral questions). Both sedes and R&R can be guilty. The problem is due to both the chaos in the church and a lack of humility. We’re all tempted to err in this area; post-V2 is like a post-apocalyptic movie where catholic society no longer exists.
-
It is wrong for any catholic to hold any theologian up as infallible, whether one worships +Bellarmine (on the papal question) or +Alphonsus (all moral questions). Both sedes and R&R can be guilty. The problem is due to both the chaos in the church and a lack of humility. We’re all tempted to err in this area; post-V2 is like a post-apocalyptic movie where catholic society no longer exists.
That's a straw man. Absolutely nobody here says that Jone was infallible. Quo disagrees with Jone, and yet he rightly states that Catholics are entitled to follow Jone. So, despite a disagreement on the particulars, my disagreement with Quo would be much more friendly and civil. I wouldn't spend 5 minutes debating this with him. What I get worked up about is the attitude towards Church authority. What I object to is Sean's trashing of the book that I posted as a reference. Back in the 1940s, a lay person might ask his Confessor, and would likely get a Jone answer. And he would accept this with peace of soul. His duties of state do not require that he be a theologian. That's why the responsibility of a Confessor is so great. Lay theologians is a nasty post-V2 aberration ... born out of necessity due to a vacuum of legitimate authority. Even priests were never considered theologians ... only those with advanced education beyond seminary.
-
That's a straw man. Absolutely nobody here says that Jone was infallible. Quo disagrees with Jone, and yet he rightly states that Catholics are entitled to follow Jone. So, despite a disagreement on the particulars, my disagreement with Quo would be much more friendly and civil. I wouldn't spend 5 minutes debating this with him. What I get worked up about is the attitude towards Church authority. What I object to is Sean's trashing of the book that I posted as a reference. Back in the 1940s, a lay person might ask his Confessor, and would likely get a Jone answer. And he would accept this with peace of soul. His duties of state do not require that he be a theologian. That's why the responsibility of a Confessor is so great. Lay theologians is a nasty post-V2 aberration ... born out of necessity due to a vacuum of legitimate authority. Even priests were never considered theologians ... only those with advanced education beyond seminary.
If the book was imprimatur'ed, doesn't that mean that the Church is declaring that the book is free of doctrinal or moral error? And if so, why would anything included in it be a matter of someone's "opinion"?
-
Ladislaus,
Stop with this playing Moral theologist garbage already, all you are doing is swimming in excrement. You are not a priest, get over it.
-
What I object to is Sean's trashing of the book that I posted as a reference.
Dude, I’m agreeing with you.
-
Ladislaus,
Stop with this playing Moral theologist garbage already, all you are doing is swimming in excrement. You are not a priest, get over it.
Ladislaus didn’t play moral theologian, he’s simply explaining that you are safe to follow an approved theologian. This is defended by the great Saint Alphonsus. (I’m using the adjective “great” with all sincerity)
-
Ladislaus,
Stop with this playing Moral theologist garbage already, all you are doing is swimming in excrement. You are not a priest, get over it.
Nor is anyone on this forum. Next time you express an opinion about a theological matter, I'll post this comment back to you. So I suggest restricting yourself to the What's for Dinner thread.
Here is the problem ... thanks to this crisis. In normal times, without this vacuum of authority, the simple correct answer is: "Ask a priest." Problem is that for every dozen priests you ask, you'll get a dozen issues. Priests are all over the map and disagreeing with each other on a wide range of issues. So each person is stuck with forming their own conscience ... so they can decide on which priest to ask in the first place.
And "ask a priest" is indeed the point we're discussion. There's an opinion here approved by Church authority. Had SeanJohnson gone to ask Father Jone in Conession, this is the answer he would have gotten. Yet SeanJohnson would play "theologist" and reject the answer. In point of fact, I am asking a priest by reading what he wrote. That's the point, and you've completely missed it.
-
Dude, I’m agreeing with you.
That's fine. You just objected to the position that theologians are infallible. My response was, essentially, of course not. Nobody is saying that any priest is infallible.
-
No one is safe with cloaca coitus. Do it enough and you're likely to croak. The road to Vatican II was paved with perfectly approved theologians. When it comes to stuff like sex, use common sense if you still have it.
-
No one is safe with cloaca coitus. Do it enough and you're likely to croak. The road to Vatican II was paved with perfectly approved theologians. When it comes to stuff like sex, use common sense if you still have it.
Nobody said it was "safe" or sanitary or not gross. All Jone said was that it was not mortal sin (under certain conditions). Grossness by itself does not suffice for mortal sin.
-
Nobody said it was "safe" or sanitary or not gross. All Jone said was that it was not mortal sin (under certain conditions). Grossness by itself does not suffice for mortal sin.
Only if it's an accident! It's gross because the act itself is bestial. This seems to me a gap in moral theology which is left to test the faithful. Even if everything isn't necessarily spelled out for us, it doesn't mean we are permitted to try it.
-
No one is safe with cloaca coitus. Do it enough and you're likely to croak. The road to Vatican II was paved with perfectly approved theologians. When it comes to stuff like sex, use common sense if you still have it.
Thanks for the Latin lesson. We learn something every day. I speak Spanish and in Spanish, cloaca means sewer pipe. I can use your lesson for Spanish speaking people. Notice I kept calling it a sewer pipe and a cesspool drainage pipe, not because I knew anything, but because that is exactly what its purpose is, it is meant to transport human excrement. In Spanish all I have to do is call it cloaca coitus (which translates to intercourse with a sewer pipe).
I've learned in my life that if people describe things as they really are, it has a profound effect on the listener, whether they acknowledge it at the moment or not, they will not forget what you said.
I have a friend that calls pro-choice, pro-infanticide, not even pro-abortion. Very good!
-
Only if it's an accident! It's gross because the act itself is bestial. This seems to me a gap in moral theology which is left to test the faithful. Even if everything isn't necessarily spelled out for us, it doesn't mean we are permitted to try it.
Bestial, that is exactly what it is. The moral theology manuals are meant for priests to study and use in the confessional, not from the pulpit. It is a filthy business being a confessor, but someone has to do it. It is not meant for a layman to teach moral theology, and it is not meant for anyone to teach it from the pulpit (=Cathinfo).
-
The moral theology manuals are meant for priests to study and use in the confessional, not from the pulpit. It is not meant for a layman to teach, and it is not meant for anyone to teach it from the pulpit (=Cathinfo).
Look, I wasn't "teaching" anything. You're going after the wrong guy here. SeanJohnson was the one who launched into this subject, and I was merely attempting to rebut him. And not because of the issue itself but because of the principles involved in his attempting to usurp moral authority. If anyone was arguing that he as a laymen did not have the authority to impose his views on others, it was I. So what you're attacking me for here was precisely the point I was making against Johnson.
-
Look, I wasn't "teaching" anything. You're going after the wrong guy here. SeanJohnson was the one who launched into this subject, and I was merely attempting to rebut him. And not because of the issue itself but because of the principles involved in his attempting to usurp moral authority. If anyone was arguing that he as a laymen did not have the authority to impose his views on others, it was I. So what you're attacking me for here was precisely the point I was making against Johnson.
I'm not attacking anyone, for I have not read one thing written here about sodomy one way or the other. What I told you was that you should have chosen another subject other than sodomy to prove your point. I think that 95% of the bad reactions to this thread are towards a discussion on sodomy, intercourse with a sewer pipe.
-
I'm not attacking anyone, for I have not read one thing written here about sodomy one way or the other. What I told you was that you should have chosen another subject other than sodomy to prove your point. I think that 95% of the bad reactions to this thread are towards a discussion on sodomy, intercourse with a sewer pipe.
Again, it was Johnson who started talking about that subject.
-
I cited St. Alphonsus himself, who taught that Catholics may, without sin, act on any "probable" opinion (e.g. something which is taught in approved text by theologians).
St. Alphonsus calls the opinion contrary to Jone's (the claim it is a mortal sin) the common and "verius" ("more true") opinion, in Theologia Moralis lib. 2 n. 916 (https://archive.org/details/theologiamoralis02ligu_0/page/673).
The argument is simple: just as inchoate fornication is still fornication, inchoate sodomy is still sodomy.
-
I never said it wasn't legitimate to disagree with that particular opinion.
What I have a serious issue with is imputing mortal sin to those who happen to accept that opinion. I cited St. Alphonsus himself, who taught that Catholics may, without sin, act on any "probable" opinion (e.g. something which is taught in approved text by theologians).
In addition, I was seeking an actual rational argument for why the position is wrong.
SeanJohnson just kept quoting St. Alphonsus over and over again.
I explained why his analogy with fornication fails, and why his argument was mistaken ... omnis comparatio claudicat.
Instead of rebuttal to my argument about why he was mistaken, Sean kept reposting the same quote over and over again, began to escalate into claiming that I held St. Alphonsus in "contempt", referring to me as Ladislaus the Sodomite, and then claiming that I was condoning ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.
He also kept appealing to his Novus Ordo source, Conte, and I pointed out how Conte was misunderstanding and misrepresenting Jone.
I am perfectly willing to entertain actual arguments for why this position of Jone is incorrect. But to denounce this text as garbage due to disagreeing with one opinion is unacceptable. This text had Church approval in multiple translations into various languages. It was intended as a guide for Confessors ... a handy pocket manual that did not make arguments but was summarizing the state of the question currently held in his day.
My BIGGER problem with SeanJohnson is his regular imputation of mortal sin to those following opinions which have ecclesiastical approval. This was NOT the first time. I call this out as a bad fruit of R&R, the substitution of Church authority with the private judgment of SeanJohnson.
I too disagree with Pius XII's approval of NFP in his Allocution to Midwives. Nevertheless, if I were a priest, I would not deny absolution to anyone practicing NFP under the conditions stipulated by theologians as meeting the "grave reason" requirement of Pius XII. I am not in a position of imposing my own opinion on the consciences of others. I might try to persuade someone that it's wrong, but that's as far as it goes.
I asked SeanJohnson to answer this question:
If you were a priest, would you refuse absolution to someone who engaged in this practice even if they considered it not to be mortal sin based on an appeal to Jone. He did not answer.
Not to derail, but the core issue is the nature of authority and I have a question about the nature of authority.
If someone used NFP under circuмstances that wouldn’t be considered grave by Pius XIIs definition , and justified it by appeal to the V2 magisterium, which they believed legitimate, would you deny them absolution and if so what would be your basis
-
St. Alphonsus calls the opinion contrary to Jone's (the claim it is a mortal sin) the common and "verius" ("more true") opinion, in Theologia Moralis lib. 2 n. 916 (https://archive.org/details/theologiamoralis02ligu_0/page/673).
The argument is simple: just as inchoate fornication is still fornication, inchoate sodomy is still sodomy.
Yes, it was the common opinion TWO HUNDRED YEARS before Jone. That had changed by the time his book was written.
-
Not to derail, but the core issue is the nature of authority and I have a question about the nature of authority.
If someone used NFP under circuмstances that wouldn’t be considered grave by Pius XIIs definition , and justified it by appeal to the V2 magisterium, which they believed legitimate, would you deny them absolution and if so what would be your basis
Since I have not studied this in detail, I cannot give a definitive answer on the matter. I would go by whatever the theology manuals held regarding the practice of NFP without grave reason. If the penitent cited such a text legitimately, then I would defer to it. Now, my gut feeling is that the indiscriminate use of NFP with no other reason than convenience would be a grave sin, since one would be deliberately attempting to frustrate the primary end of marriage. There are probably other factors involved. If someone did this for two to three months, it might be venial (vs. doing it for 10 years straight). If someone had a reason that was borderline grave and might rise to the level of justifying it, that might also be venial. Again, hard to say, since I have not studied the question in depth. So just speculating here.
Grave reason is a bit tough, as it might be arguable. Also, the confessor would have to sift through whether the penitent was exaggerating some difficulty in order to rationalize the practice which was really being engaged in for convenience. People have a tendency to "find" reasons to justify their actions. "Oh, our doctor told us that the mother's life was at stake." That too the physicians tend to exaggerate in order to protect themselves from possible malpractice claims. So there's a lot to wade through with this.
-
Since I have not studied this in detail, I cannot give a definitive answer on the matter. I would go by whatever the theology manuals held regarding the practice of NFP without grave reason. If the penitent cited such a text legitimately, then I would defer to it. Now, my gut feeling is that the indiscriminate use of NFP with no other reason than convenience would be a grave sin, since one would be deliberately attempting to frustrate the primary end of marriage. There are probably other factors involved. If someone did this for two to three months, it might be venial (vs. doing it for 10 years straight). If someone had a reason that was borderline grave and might rise to the level of justifying it, that might also be venial. Again, hard to say, since I have not studied the question in depth. So just speculating here.
Grave reason is a bit tough, as it might be arguable. Also, the confessor would have to sift through whether the penitent was exaggerating some difficulty in order to rationalize the practice which was really being engaged in for convenience. People have a tendency to "find" reasons to justify their actions. "Oh, our doctor told us that the mother's life was at stake." That too the physicians tend to exaggerate in order to protect themselves from possible malpractice claims. So there's a lot to wade through with this.
OK, I guess the core of my question is, a person who isn’t a committed trad attends your chapel for whatever reason (say it’s an sspx chapel and thus Rome says they can, or something) and the penitent cites a post Vatican ii source to you to justify their actions, would that be good enough assuming it was cited correctly for you to commune them or not
-
OK, I guess the core of my question is, a person who isn’t a committed trad attends your chapel for whatever reason (say it’s an sspx chapel and thus Rome says they can, or something) and the penitent cites a post Vatican ii source to you to justify their actions, would that be good enough assuming it was cited correctly for you to commune them or not
I think I'm missing something here. If the hypothetical penitent thinks his actions are justified, how/why would he be confessing it in the first place?
-
I think I'm missing something here. If the hypothetical penitent thinks his actions are justified, how/why would he be confessing it in the first place?
I think ladislaus meant would you deny absolution for a DIFFERENT sin because of the use of NFP
-
I think I'm missing something here. If the hypothetical penitent thinks his actions are justified, how/why would he be confessing it in the first place?
This term "refusal of absolution" is broader, a generic term, meaning the person would not be admitted to the Sacraments. It's a priest-level-appropriate equivalent of excommunication. If the priest found out SOMEHOW, the person would be treated as a public sinner and denied the Sacraments ... the same was as a couple living together in a state of fornication. If the penitent were convinced that it is no sin, then of course they might never bring it up in Confession. But it could come up in the form of a question, "Father, is this OK?" Priest: "No, it's a grave sin. Do you resolve to stop?" Penitent: "No, I don't want to stop doing it." Priest: "I can't give you absolution." That's the general type of scenario envisioned by the term, but it's a bit broader, meaning a refusal of the Sacraments.
Now, the current discussion involves the corollary. Priest: "I think that you need to stop doing that." Penitent: "But I read that it's OK in Jone." Priest: "I disagree with that, and I think you should stop." Penitent: "Well, Jone says it's not a sin." Priest: "I disagree with Jone." Priest: gives absolution. [this is hypothetical since the activity in question is almost certainly at least a venial sin]
-
I think ladislaus meant would you deny absolution for a DIFFERENT sin because of the use of NFP
Right ... absolution in general.
-
This term "refusal of absolution" is broader, a generic term, meaning the person would not be admitted to the Sacraments. It's a priest-level-appropriate equivalent of excommunication. If the priest found out SOMEHOW, the person would be treated as a public sinner and denied the Sacraments ... the same was as a couple living together in a state of fornication. If the penitent were convinced that it is no sin, then of course they might never bring it up in Confession. But it could come up in the form of a question, "Father, is this OK?" Priest: "No, it's a grave sin. Do you resolve to stop?" Penitent: "No, I don't want to stop doing it." Priest: "I can't give you absolution." That's the general type of scenario envisioned by the term, but it's a bit broader, meaning a refusal of the Sacraments.
Now, the current discussion involves the corollary. Priest: "I think that you need to stop doing that." Penitent: "But I read that it's OK in Jone." Priest: "I disagree with that, and I think you should stop." Penitent: "Well, Jone says it's not a sin." Priest: "I disagree with Jone." Priest: gives absolution. [this is hypothetical since the activity in question is almost certainly at least a venial sin]
That's not how BysCat's hypothetical situation sounded, but I understand what you are saying.
-
OK, I guess the core of my question is, a person who isn’t a committed trad attends your chapel for whatever reason (say it’s an sspx chapel and thus Rome says they can, or something) and the penitent cites a post Vatican ii source to you to justify their actions, would that be good enough assuming it was cited correctly for you to commune them or not
In the Novus Ordo, the entire system has broken down. Very few self-styled theologians these days would even come close to qualifying as such prior to Vatican II, and yet every other one feels entitled to publish his own ramblings and reflections far and wide. So there would have to be appeal to some formal Church teaching rather that to some Novus Ordo pamphlet or the ramblings of some Modernist priest. Appeal to Novus Ordo sources is probably the equivalent to appealing to, say, my posts here on CathInfo. Now, if there were appeal to some specific putative papal teaching, then that might be more difficult. If the person is convinced that Paul VI was a Pope and appealed to something in Humanae Vitae and considered it to be Church teaching, I could see a person having a sincerely informed conscience ... although that too could be just rationalization. Thankfully, Wojtyla did keep most Catholic MORAL teaching intact ... although Bergoglio has begun to undermine it, especially with Amoris Laetitia. I would not accept an appeal to Amoris Laetitia as legitimate justification for cohabitation. Even Amoris Laetitia gives most of the discretion to the priest, and as a priest I would deny such appeals. In fact, Bergoglio directly contradicts Wojtyla on this matter in Amoris Laetitia, so an appeal to the latter entails a rejection of the former.
This crisis is so very sticky in many ways, since, even though the Conciliar establishment really entails the establishment of a religion (doctrine and worship) that is alien to the Traditional Catholic religion, most still consider themselves to be Catholic, profess the true faith, and are only in material error.
-
That's not how BysCat's hypothetical situation sounded, but I understand what you are saying.
It's similar, akin the part where I discuss the priest finding out about it SOMEHOW. Obviously, of course, the priest is not in any position to take any action whatsoever regarding something he doesn't know about.
-
That's not how BysCat's hypothetical situation sounded, but I understand what you are saying.
I may have worded it badly, but ladislaus got the intent of it