Author Topic: Who am I to judge? (Read 2789 times)

Croixalist · « **Reply #15 on:** November 10, 2015, 03:24:42 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Croixalist
If you can find it in your heart to pray for wretches like these, that's fine... but do it on your own time.

Thus the crux of our disagreement. Our Lord demands that we find it in our hearts to pray for such as these.

How's that novena for Roman Polanski coming?

You miss the point. No, I am not currently praying for Roman Polanski. I have so many other people to pray for that I am not drawn to pray for him specifically at this time. But that doesn't mean I could not find it in my heart to do so if the inclination struck me. I do however pray generally every day for the "conversion of sinners", no matter how bad they are.

Well, unless you have an inclination to pray for this man specifically, that's a platitude so broad that it isn't worth mentioning.... especially when you haven't prayed for him. I'm not sure where you're going with this. Be prepared to pray if I get the inclination? Impossible not to!

I know there's some debate as to the exact English translation of the Fatima prayer, but my take on it has been "lead all souls- those who are properly disposed to receive grace- to Heaven." Obviously, that includes all of Purgatory but also sinners who stand to make good use of Christ's mercy if given another chance. It's true we never know what's going on with each individual, but for the worst cases it's perfectly fine to wait for some signs of life first before getting carried away on a prayer crusade.

If you want to go above and beyond, you're welcome to but you can't use extreme cases like this to shame everyone else. It's not what St. Therese did when she prayed for the murderer who had a last minute conversion before his just execution.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** November 10, 2015, 06:05:16 PM »

No, it's not a platitude, but a principle, and a teaching of Our Lord. If you consider finding the ability to pray for such a one as "optional", then you've entirely missed the message of Our Lord.

poche · « **Reply #17 on:** November 10, 2015, 11:15:17 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

On a recent thread regarding the SSPX Pedophile, I advised that we Catholics should also have compassion and charity for the perpetrator. I mentioned that we don't know everything that led to these sins and we don't know whether we ourselves would not have gone down the same path had we been in his shoes. I referred to the famous statement from St. Augustine, "There but for the grace of God go I."

For this I was mocked with "Who am I to judge?" images of Francis in that thread.

In point of fact, there's a very Catholic sense in which "Who am I to judge?" is absolutely true.

Quote from: Gospel of St. Matthew, VII.1-2
Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.

In fact, even the Church has always considered herself incompetent to judge matters of the internal forum, according to the maxim De internis Ecclesia non judicat. ("About internal matters the Church does not judge.")

Only God can see into the depths of souls and judge the degree of guilt that any individual has in the commission of various sins. Yet the Church does indeed judge and make presumptions of judgment based on external forum indicators.

What has happened since Vatican II is that the Concilar Prelates have decided that internal forum subjectivism OVERRIDES these external forum judgments of the Church, that subjectivist intent actually represents the true objective reality of the matter, whereas the objective action means nothing, is purely accidental to what's going on, and in the eyes of God is completely trumped by the internal forum. For them, internal forum is to external forum what substance is to accidents.

At first Vatican II did this with dogmatic theology. If someone is sincerely seeking God, then that in itself constitutes supernatural faith and charity, whether or not a person objectively has the Catholic faith. This is what has created the new subjectivist "subsistence" ecclesiology of Vatican II.

Now, in the moral order, they're doing exactly the same thing, with this Relatio from the Synod against the Family. Despite the fact that the Church judges it objectively in the external forum to be a grave sin to cohabitate adulterously after divorce, if one has concluded in their own introspection of the internal forum that they do not have "full culpability" in the matter, then they are permitted to approach the Sacraments. So here too, in the moral order, the subjectivist dispositions of the internal forum override the objective reality of the external forum. That's clearly where Francis has been pushing his own "Who am I to judge?" agenda. Unfortunately, not even we ourselves are competent to decide our own culpability in the internal forum. But none of that trumps the judgment of the Church regarding the external forum. Can I receive Holy Communion after committing a mortal sin and before Confession simply because I am morally certain that I had made a perfect act of contrition? Absolutely not.

So let us make the proper distinctions between a true understanding of "Who am I to judge?" which Our Lord Himself and the Church after Him have taught and the modernist subjectivist version of the phrase. Bishop Williamson absolutely nails it on stating that all the errors of Vatican II are rooted in this subjectivism, a mindset that has grown over the years from Descartes to the Phenomenologists and gradually infected Catholicism with its rot. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both leading phenomenologists.

Even so, that counselor was the adult of the group and should have known better. There is a reason why we hold adults, and in particular adults who have supervision over other peoples' children to a higher standard. This person didn't just bring discredit on himself but he also brought discredit on the SSPX who were affiliated with that camp.

poche · « **Reply #18 on:** November 10, 2015, 11:17:47 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

On a recent thread regarding the SSPX Pedophile, I advised that we Catholics should also have compassion and charity for the perpetrator. I mentioned that we don't know everything that led to these sins and we don't know whether we ourselves would not have gone down the same path had we been in his shoes. I referred to the famous statement from St. Augustine, "There but for the grace of God go I."

For this I was mocked with "Who am I to judge?" images of Francis in that thread.

In point of fact, there's a very Catholic sense in which "Who am I to judge?" is absolutely true.

Quote from: Gospel of St. Matthew, VII.1-2
Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.

In fact, even the Church has always considered herself incompetent to judge matters of the internal forum, according to the maxim De internis Ecclesia non judicat. ("About internal matters the Church does not judge.")

Only God can see into the depths of souls and judge the degree of guilt that any individual has in the commission of various sins. Yet the Church does indeed judge and make presumptions of judgment based on external forum indicators.

What has happened since Vatican II is that the Concilar Prelates have decided that internal forum subjectivism OVERRIDES these external forum judgments of the Church, that subjectivist intent actually represents the true objective reality of the matter, whereas the objective action means nothing, is purely accidental to what's going on, and in the eyes of God is completely trumped by the internal forum. For them, internal forum is to external forum what substance is to accidents.

At first Vatican II did this with dogmatic theology. If someone is sincerely seeking God, then that in itself constitutes supernatural faith and charity, whether or not a person objectively has the Catholic faith. This is what has created the new subjectivist "subsistence" ecclesiology of Vatican II.

Now, in the moral order, they're doing exactly the same thing, with this Relatio from the Synod against the Family. Despite the fact that the Church judges it objectively in the external forum to be a grave sin to cohabitate adulterously after divorce, if one has concluded in their own introspection of the internal forum that they do not have "full culpability" in the matter, then they are permitted to approach the Sacraments. So here too, in the moral order, the subjectivist dispositions of the internal forum override the objective reality of the external forum. That's clearly where Francis has been pushing his own "Who am I to judge?" agenda. Unfortunately, not even we ourselves are competent to decide our own culpability in the internal forum. But none of that trumps the judgment of the Church regarding the external forum. Can I receive Holy Communion after committing a mortal sin and before Confession simply because I am morally certain that I had made a perfect act of contrition? Absolutely not.

So let us make the proper distinctions between a true understanding of "Who am I to judge?" which Our Lord Himself and the Church after Him have taught and the modernist subjectivist version of the phrase. Bishop Williamson absolutely nails it on stating that all the errors of Vatican II are rooted in this subjectivism, a mindset that has grown over the years from Descartes to the Phenomenologists and gradually infected Catholicism with its rot. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both leading phenomenologists.

cassini · « **Reply #19 on:** November 11, 2015, 06:03:37 AM »

Here is an optional prayer that is said after each decade of the Rosary.

Fatima Prayer

O my Jesus, forgive us of our sins. Save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls into heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy.

This prayer is for all, everyone, who needs God's mercy. We do not have to name individuals like the subject of this post, but people like him are included.

Croixalist · « **Reply #20 on:** November 11, 2015, 09:34:08 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

No, it's not a platitude, but a principle, and a teaching of Our Lord. If you consider finding the ability to pray for such a one as "optional", then you've entirely missed the message of Our Lord.

No, that's not the principle you're presenting here. It's to be "prepared to pray" in the event one has the "inclination." You've admitted you haven't prayed specifically for these men and yet you feel the need to impress on everyone the need to pray for them. Either you are saying nothing at all, or you aren't taking responsibility when caught in a contradiction.

I'd wager most people here pray the Fatima prayer, the St. Gertrude prayer, etc. but you apparently felt the need to interject during a discussion right where expressions of disgust and horror were most appropriate, in order to inform us that we ought not judge lest... because? Apparently we were being to harsh on him! I can't think of any other reason why you felt the need to do that. Maybe you thought it would be an easy win in the debate column?

Somebody must have taken notes from female debate tactics 101!

You got called on it, you didn't like it, then extended that dead end with another false dilemma, and a reminder of how wrong everyone was for reacting the way they did to you.

The cool cucuмber act is getting downright stale! You're about as transparent as plastic wrap on a toilet seat. Pull yourself together man!

:boxer:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** November 11, 2015, 10:35:15 AM »

You're incorrigible and hopeless.

wallflower · « **Reply #22 on:** November 11, 2015, 02:04:34 PM »

Quote from: Croixalist

Quote from: Ladislaus
No, it's not a platitude, but a principle, and a teaching of Our Lord. If you consider finding the ability to pray for such a one as "optional", then you've entirely missed the message of Our Lord.

No, that's not the principle you're presenting here. It's to be "prepared to pray" in the event one has the "inclination." You've admitted you haven't prayed specifically for these men and yet you feel the need to impress on everyone the need to pray for them. Either you are saying nothing at all, or you aren't taking responsibility when caught in a contradiction.

Inclination is maybe better described as a movement of the Holy Ghost. Human beings are too limited to think and pray for all men at all times, except in general terms, but the Holy Ghost often moves different people to pray for specific others whether they know them personally or not. The thought pops into your head that you ought to pray for someone and you are moved, inclined, disposed, to cooperate with the inspiration.

Croixalist · « **Reply #23 on:** November 11, 2015, 03:40:50 PM »

Quote from: wallflower

Quote from: Croixalist
Quote from: Ladislaus
No, it's not a platitude, but a principle, and a teaching of Our Lord. If you consider finding the ability to pray for such a one as "optional", then you've entirely missed the message of Our Lord.

No, that's not the principle you're presenting here. It's to be "prepared to pray" in the event one has the "inclination." You've admitted you haven't prayed specifically for these men and yet you feel the need to impress on everyone the need to pray for them. Either you are saying nothing at all, or you aren't taking responsibility when caught in a contradiction.

Inclination is maybe better described as a movement of the Holy Ghost. Human beings are too limited to think and pray for all men at all times, except in general terms, but the Holy Ghost often moves different people to pray for specific others whether they know them personally or not. The thought pops into your head that you ought to pray for someone and you are moved, inclined, disposed, to cooperate with the inspiration.

I agree. But to use a "preparation for an inclination" as a silencing move, when he clearly started out saying we shouldn't judge (which later turned into a "let us pray" moment instead), simply does not work or make any sense in this case. I'm not saying we shouldn't pray for him, but let him be condemned and pay the due penalty for his actions. I would never stop anybody who has an inclination to pray, but I do object when someone takes prayer for special cases and makes it an absolute requirement for everyone else.... especially when the inclination hasn't even hit them yet. It's just classic hypocrisy.

Imagine the ego it takes to sit there and say to everyone else to make sure they prepare to have an inclination to prayer (as if that's even definable) then turn around and say I don't have time to pray for him because I'm praying for more important things.

Truly astonishing, you've outdone yourself Ladi!

Quote from: Ladislaus

You're incorrigible and hopeless.

You've got an irrepressible urge to lecture and denounce that will get you into more trouble than it's worth.