Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.  (Read 12221 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Columba

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 552
  • Reputation: +728/-0
  • Gender: Male
ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
« Reply #45 on: July 31, 2014, 05:32:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Quote from: J.Paul
    Columba,
    Quote
    Your post closely followed Drew's and was built around the term "reformulate" that he had misleadingly introduced into the discussion.

    Correction:  It was NOT "misleading" but rather it was most appropriate.

    After seeing Drew's post, I had to review the EC because I thought I must have missed "reformulate" in my first reading. When I realized that the loaded term was not in fact there, I felt personally misled. When I saw J.Paul and Cantarella repeating the charge as if it was established fact, I assumed they had been similarly misled but had failed to reread the EC.

    I am not offended by anyone making a case that the EC proposes reformulation, but I do protest bald assertion made without an argument because it is a very serious charge.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3712/-282
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #46 on: August 01, 2014, 07:59:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Columba,
    Quote
    You did not use "reformulate" in any post prior to Drew's. Closely following his seamless introduction of the term into this thread, you literally built your next post around "reformulate," even going so far as quote the dictionary definition.

    "Reformulate" is loaded because Drew used that term for tying the EC to the founding document of the present crisis:

    John XXIII Vatican II Opening Address said:
    What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which the faithful owe obedience, be studied afresh and reformulated in contemporary terms.

    Why endlessly repeat such a loaded term if H.E.'s own words were sufficient for condemnation.


    I made my point about this problem, well before drew's post.

    My comment after his post was due to the fact that the thrust of his analysis was dead on regardless of the term which he used, which by the way, is a an accurate description of the terms used by the Bishop. Both terms essentially  convey the same meaning without a qualifier inserted.

    It is neither drew's fault or my own that this word is a hallmark of the modernists, and as such, is a loaded term.
     
    The fault lies with H.E. for using such a concept without a proper distinction to limit the meaning.



    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18089
    • Reputation: +8208/-629
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #47 on: August 01, 2014, 09:12:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Columba
    Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Quote from: J.Paul
    Columba,
    Quote
    Your post closely followed Drew's and was built around the term "reformulate" that he had misleadingly introduced into the discussion.

    Correction:  It was NOT "misleading" but rather it was most appropriate.

    After seeing Drew's post, I had to review the EC because I thought I must have missed "reformulate" in my first reading. When I realized that the loaded term was not in fact there, I felt personally misled. When I saw J.Paul and Cantarella repeating the charge as if it was established fact, I assumed they had been similarly misled but had failed to reread the EC.

    I am not offended by anyone making a case that the EC proposes reformulation, but I do protest bald assertion made without an argument because it is a very serious charge.

    If you want to get upset about something, find a more reasonable topic.  

    Your repeating that it's a "loaded" term is a flat-out lie.  Own it.

    Drew's use of the term "reformulate" is not misleading because it's TRUE. What IS indeed "loaded" is your penchant for making a mountain out of a molehill based on how you FEEL about it.  

    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18089
    • Reputation: +8208/-629
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #48 on: August 01, 2014, 10:18:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    Drew, thanks for all the support, but you might enjoy being informed that petwerp is under the delusion that I bother to read his stupid posts.

    Quote from: drew
    Quote from: petwerp
    Quote from: Neil Obstat
    should not be overlooked


    Neil, what should NOT be overlooked is that if you think the Bishop has a flock then you are Schismatic.

    And he is furthermore under the delusion that I could possibly care less what he thinks, because I couldn't.   HAHAHAHAHA

    Quote
    Quote
    He is not a Bishop - in the true sense, i.e. attached to a See. Even the term "Auxillary Bishop" is a misnomer since auxillaries are still attached to a See.

    The Society Bishops are unique in the Catholic Church and Archbishop Lefebvre admitted that if there ever was an agreement with Rome, they still might not accept them as Bishops [or words to that effect].

    In addition to this, Bishop Williamson is no longer a member of the SSPX. He was expelled. He is no longer an "auxillary", so where does that leave him?


    The accusation of "schism" is a serious charge.  You have leveled it against anyone who would regard Bishop Williamson as a shepherd to a "flock" of faithful Catholics.  This accusation is wholly without merit.  We can only be grateful that your mouth is not a gun.  

    The problem petwerp has is shooting his mouth off when nobody's listening.

    Quote
    St. Pius X in says Pascendi that, “Every society needs a directing authority to guide its members toward the common end, to foster prudently the elements of cohesion, which in a religious society are doctrine and worship; hence, the triple authority in the Catholic Church, disciplinary, dogmatic and liturgical” (emphasis his).  This "triple authority" is derived respectively from the three-fold attributes that God has endowed His Church: authority, infallibility, and indefectibility.  It is important to remember always that these primarily are necessary properties of, and belong to, the Church by nature, and only secondarily and accidentally to individual churchmen.  

    The purpose of the “directing authority” (i.e. disciplinary) is to direct the Church “toward the common end” which are “doctrine” (dogmatic) and “worship” (liturgical).  The exercise of "authority" outside of these ends, or in opposition to these ends, cannot be done with any legitimacy.  No Catholic can morally give obedience to any law, command, directive, etc. that harms the faith or leads to the loss of salvation of souls.

    The faithful have a right to the sacraments and the true doctrine of the faith because God has imposed upon them the duty to know and believe His revealed truth and to worship Him in the public forum according to the "received and approved rites of the Church."  These "rights" of the faithful impose duties upon priests who hold ordinary jurisdiction but whenever these clerics prove to be unfaithful priest and fail in their duties, the faithful are free to seek from others their rights that are necessary to fulfill their obligations to God, and any priest is free to assume these responsibilities even in disobedience to any holding lawful jurisdiction.  The Church then provides a supplied jurisdiction to these priest because of the needs of the faithful.  If the faithful "flock" look to Bishop Williamson as a shepherd after receiving only "stones" and "serpents" from their ordinaries that cannot, in and of itself, constitute a schismatic act.    

    It's nice for you to bring up supplied jurisdiction, but please keep in mind that petwerp, while he's probably CAPABLE of understanding the principle at least on a natural level, is nonetheless invincibly ignorant of its application due to his pertinacious and abiding zeal for being stupid on such matters.  

    So, it's like you're talking to a wall of Z-Bricks.


    Quote
    Furthermore, schism is canonically defined as “the withdrawal of submission (subiectionis detrectatio) to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him”(Canon 751).  An English translation of Canon 751 which defines schism as “refusal of subjection”, or “refusal to be subject”, to the Supreme Pontiff, would be an accurate translation of the Latin.

    Although every act of schism is an act of disobedience, not every act of disobedience is an act of schism.  

    At this point you can rest assured that petwerp is entirely lost.  He would never have read this far.  But I do appreciate your detail, distinction and follow-through.  Thank you!

    Quote
    Since the canon 751 does not say that partial withdrawal of submission is enough to qualify as schism, we should presume that the withdrawal has to be complete, both materially and formally, in order to be guilty of the offense of schism.  Why?  Because, the more lenient interpretation of Canon 751 is in harmony with the canonical principle expressed in Canon 18 of the Code: “Laws which impose a penalty . . . are to be interpreted strictly.”  Canon 18 means that whenever a penal law should require interpretation — as does Canon 1364, §1 in prescribing excommunication for “schism” — the correct interpretation will be that which employs a definition which favors charity to the accused.  Only those actions which clearly and indisputably qualify as offenses are understood to violate the law in question.

    Canon 17 states that when there is some obscurity in the meaning of a law, “there must be recourse [on the part of the interpreter] to parallel places, if there be any, to the purposes and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.” There are no “parallel places,” other than Canon 751 that explain what schism is. However, there are twenty-nine canons between Canon 1365 and Canon 1397 which implicitly explain clearly what schism is not. Specifically, these canons prescribe lesser penalties than excommunication for multiple forms of disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff, and therefore  a fortiori, to a local ordinary. Since schism does incur excommunication, it logically follows that there are multiple forms of disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff, and therefore a fortiori, to the local ordinary, which do not reach the very grave level of schism.

    Canon 17 also stipulates that in interpreting a given canon, recourse “to the mind of the legislator” should be done. In Canon 751 it is evident that the mind of the legislator closely follows the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas because the definition of schism in Canon 751 is it taken almost verbatim from him. In the Summa Theologiæ, IIa IIæ, Q. 39, a.1: St. Thomas says, “schismatics are those who refuse to be subject to the Roman Pontiff and who refuse communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Consequently, the context for the definition of schism by St. Thomas is highly pertinent for an exact interpretation of Canon 751.

    St. Thomas makes it clear that schism is a particular kind of disobedience, a distinct kind of sin.
    Quote from: St. Thomas
    "Objection 2: Further, a man is apparently a schismatic if he disobeys the Church. But every sin makes a man disobey the commandments of the Church, because sin, according to Ambrose (De Parad. viii) 'is disobedience against the heavenly commandments.' Therefore every sin is a schism."  St. Thomas replies (Q. 39, a.1, ad 2) that the "essence of schism is in rebelliously disobeying [the Church’s] commandments. I say ‘rebelliously’ because the schismatic shows obstinate scorn for the Church’s commandments and refuses to submit to her judgment. Not every sinner does that; and so not every sin is schism.” The specific examples given by St. Thomas in Q. 39, a 2.1, taken from the book of Numbers 16:30 and II Kings 17, make it clear that "rebelliously" is to be understood in the strict meaning of the term, as when subjects reject completely the authority of the lawful leader.  In the passage from the Book of Numbers, Core, Dathan, and Abiron, their followers, families and all their possessions were swallowed up by the earth in punishment for their total rejection of the authority of Moses. These men "stood up against Moses and Aaron, (and) they said: 'Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?'"  The rebellion of Core repudiated the entire authority of Moses to rule.  In the second example, St. Thomas mentions the ten tribes of Israel under Jeroboam, who completely separated themselves rejecting the legitimate authority of Reboam, the King of Judah who was the son of Solomon in the line of King David (I Kings 12: 26-33).


    Every authoritative theologian after St. Thomas follows his criterion for the definition of schism. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says that: “not every disobedience is schism; in order to possess this character it must include, besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command” (vol. 13, p. 529a, s.v. “Schism”). Likewise, the magisterial Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (DTC), possibly the greatest compendium of orthodox Catholic theology, explains the difference between heresy and schism:

    Quote from:  Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique
    "Schism and disobedience: The two things are so evidently similar, so closely related, that many confuse the two, or find difficulty in distinguishing them. . . . Cajetan (commenting on St. Thomas' definition of schism) makes some very neat and satisfying precisions. He distinguishes three points of application, or three possible motives for disobedience. First, disobedience might concern simply the matter of the thing commanded, without calling in question the authority or even the personal calibre of the superior: thus, if I eat meat on Friday because I don’t like fish, that is not schism, but simple disobedience. Secondly, the disobedience might focus on the person who holds authority, denying for one reason or another his competence in some particular case, or judging him to be mistaken, . . . while still respecting his office. This still is not schism. . . . Schism does occur when someone . . . ‘rejects a command or judgment of the Pope by reason of his very office, not recognising him as a superior, even while believing that he is’ (cum quis papæ præceptum vel judicium ex parte officii sui recusat, non recognoscens eum ut superiorem, quamvis hoc credat)."
    Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique


    The last clause in the above citation from DTC — “even while believing that he is [a lawful superior]”— makes it clear that he is referring to "formal schism."  "Material schism" is committed by all those — and only those — who completely reject the authority per se of a lawful superior. But the offense becomes formal only in the case of those who do so with malice, that is, when knowing that the superior in question is in fact lawful, but nonetheless refusing absolutely to submit to his authority in any way.

    In fine, the consensus of every authoritative theologian is that the only kind of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff, a fortiori to the local ordinary, which constitutes material schism is the total repudiation of the Pope’s authority wherein one denies his duty to obey anything at all which he commands. It is the denial of papal jurisdiction per se.  Then, in order for the schism to be formal as well as material, and thus, culpable before God, it is necessary for the offender to be acting in bad conscience, out of pride or passion, which leads him to suppress and deny the Pope’s jurisdiction over himself, while knowing deep down that he is committing a sin in doing so.  That is, he must be acting with malice and/or culpable negligence.  

    Your accusation of schism is both morally and legally repugnant.  It is calumny and a grave sin against charity and justice. If any faithful member of Jesus Christ's Catholic "flock," wants to regard Bishop Williamson as their "shepherd," he is free to do so, until such time as those exercising ordinary jurisdiction do so in a manner directed to the proper ends of the Church that Pope St. Pius X said are "doctrine and worship."  

    Well said!  I wholeheartedly agree.

    And then regarding the SGBF, the coveting of ordinary jurisdiction, arguably sinful:

    Quote
    [SG] Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome.  For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets, he has made accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity."  He will soon learn that obedience in and of itself is not a virtue at all unless it is regulated by the virtue of Religion.

    Drew


    P.S. The canonical and moral definition of schism is largely taken from the work of Fr. Brian Harrison which was used by Fr. Samuel Waters in his defense sent to Rome against the charge made by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia against Fr. Waters and Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission.  The exchanges between Fr. Waters and Philadelphia and Rome are published on the Mission web page.


    For those who are not quite up to speed (not including petwerp because he doesn't WANT to get up to speed), making accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity" (of Benedict XVI) amounts to ecclesiastical insanity, moral insanity, and all-around insanity.  In the Psalms and in the Te Deum, we pray, "Non confudar in aeternum."  Well, making accommodations to the hermeneutic of continuity is tantamount to saying,

    "Please, I want to be confounded in eternity, so dear God, let me be so confounded."  

    IOW, it is the total inversion of the Prayers of the Church, turning them on their head.

    But petwerp won't understand that, nor does he want to. He'll no doubt prove the veracity of that, soon enough.  

    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18089
    • Reputation: +8208/-629
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #49 on: August 01, 2014, 10:36:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: J.Paul
    Quote from: Columba

    You did not use "reformulate" in any post prior to Drew's. Closely following his seamless introduction of the term into this thread, you literally built your next post around "reformulate," even going so far as quote the dictionary definition.

    "Reformulate" is loaded because Drew used that term for tying the EC to the founding document of the present crisis:

    John XXIII Vatican II Opening Address said:
    What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which the faithful owe obedience, be studied afresh and reformulated in contemporary terms.

    Why endlessly repeat such a loaded term if H.E.'s own words were sufficient for condemnation.

    Rather, why 'endlessly' complain about it?!  It's just ONE WORD, for crying out loud!  :facepalm:

    Quote
    I made my point about this problem, well before drew's post.

    My comment after his post was due to the fact that the thrust of his analysis was dead on regardless of the term which he used, which by the way, is a an accurate description of the terms used by the Bishop. Both terms essentially  convey the same meaning without a qualifier inserted.

    It is neither drew's fault or my own that this word is a hallmark of the modernists, and as such, is a loaded term.
     
    The fault lies with H.E. for using such a concept without a proper distinction to limit the meaning.


    I wouldn't at all be surprised if +W had considered using "reformulate" but decided not to, because of his preference to avoid the diversion that would erupt over its use.  But I doubt he would have anticipated that by NOT using "reformulate" that there would be such an eruption ANYWAY.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Columba

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 552
    • Reputation: +728/-0
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #50 on: August 01, 2014, 01:15:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Your repeating that it's a "loaded" term is a flat-out lie.  Own it.

    You have not attempted to refute my reasoning on that question but perhaps you may wish to dispute with J.Paul over whether that term is loaded.

    Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Drew's use of the term "reformulate" is not misleading because it's TRUE. What IS indeed "loaded" is your penchant for making a mountain out of a molehill based on how you FEEL about it.

    My message contained criticism of the text. Bypassing such criticism, you find fault with the messenger. Why not follow your own advice against acting on feeling?

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18089
    • Reputation: +8208/-629
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #51 on: August 01, 2014, 02:20:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Columba
    Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Your repeating that it's a "loaded" term is a flat-out lie.  Own it.

    You have not attempted to refute my reasoning on that question but perhaps you may wish to dispute with J.Paul over whether that term is loaded.

    Maybe you weren't paying attention.  I said what is "loaded" is your penchant to criticize a good use of an appropriate word.  

    What "reasoning" did you provide beyond your blanket statement insinuating that introducing a new word was somehow not appropriate?  Or, are you referring to how you FELT when you realized that word wasn't in the EC, therefore now you are talking about "reasoning" when all it was, was an emotional reaction?

    The entire English language is available for our use.  Why do you presume that an EC limits us to a list of words which it alone contains when we endeavor to have any discussion of it?  Or, is this simply your way of squabbling over semantics so as to avoid a substantive discussion?  There are thousands of words +W did not engage in this EC, many of which are in THIS POST.  Does that make them "loaded terms" too???

    Quote
    Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Drew's use of the term "reformulate" is not misleading because it's TRUE. What IS indeed "loaded" is your penchant for making a mountain out of a molehill based on how you FEEL about it.

    My message contained criticism of the text. Bypassing such criticism, you find fault with the messenger. Why not follow your own advice against acting on feeling?

    Your message contained criticism of Drew's text, that is, not +W's, when there wasn't anything to criticize.  You just made it up!  And when you were called out on it, you retreated into your cave of self-pity.  Now you're striking out again, like a snake.....   But I'm somehow the 'bad guy?' Curious.

    But you can redeem yourself.

    Show that you are interested in a substantive discussion, by commenting on the following:


    Quote from: +W

    But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

    The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.



    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Columba

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 552
    • Reputation: +728/-0
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #52 on: August 01, 2014, 05:02:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Quote from: Columba
    Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Your repeating that it's a "loaded" term is a flat-out lie.  Own it.

    You have not attempted to refute my reasoning on that question but perhaps you may wish to dispute with J.Paul over whether that term is loaded.

    Maybe you weren't paying attention.  I said what is "loaded" is your penchant to criticize a good use of an appropriate word.

    ??? Please cite.

    Quote from: Neil Obstat
    What "reasoning" did you provide beyond your blanket statement insinuating that introducing a new word was somehow not appropriate?  Or, are you referring to how you FELT when you realized that word wasn't in the EC, therefore now you are talking about "reasoning" when all it was, was an emotional reaction?

    The entire English language is available for our use.  Why do you presume that an EC limits us to a list of words which it alone contains when we endeavor to have any discussion of it?  Or, is this simply your way of squabbling over semantics so as to avoid a substantive discussion?  There are thousands of words +W did not engage in this EC, many of which are in THIS POST.  Does that make them "loaded terms" too???

    Quote
    Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Drew's use of the term "reformulate" is not misleading because it's TRUE. What IS indeed "loaded" is your penchant for making a mountain out of a molehill based on how you FEEL about it.

    My message contained criticism of the text. Bypassing such criticism, you find fault with the messenger. Why not follow your own advice against acting on feeling?

    Your message contained criticism of Drew's text, that is, not +W's, when there wasn't anything to criticize.  You just made it up!  And when you were called out on it, you retreated into your cave of self-pity.  Now you're striking out again, like a snake.....   But I'm somehow the 'bad guy?' Curious.

    I would say that your exclusive reliance upon the ad hominem fallacy undermines your position except it is unclear whether you have a position regarding the point that I made.

    One can only speculate, but it appears you do not disagree that the term "reformulate" was first introduced without explanation. Drew provided an explanation in a subsequent post. I responded only that he should made such explanation when he first introduced the term.

    It would appear that you only beef (again, one can only speculate) is that I noticed and complained about what I thought was a misleading introduction of a loaded term.

    If so, your feelings are duly noted.

    Quote from: Neil Obstat
    But you can redeem yourself.

    Show that you are interested in a substantive discussion, by commenting on the following:


    Quote from: +W

    But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

    The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.

    You invite me to address H.E.'s overall message instead of complaining about a flaw in Drew's response. The former is a larger issue, but the latter is not off-topic.

    The language in the EC is sloppy and evidently can be misleading. The resulting controversy underscores the importance of a) discussing such matters in terms that can never be misleading and b) detecting such language flaws where they exist.

    How do I know Drew's initial introduction of the term "reformulate" was misleading? Because it had that effect on me. Initially it appeared that J.Paul and Cantarella were similarly misled, although J.Paul appears to have subsequently denied this for himself.

    Soon after I raised the matter, I received a private message of agreement from another forum member that has not posted on this thread. So there is at least one other (and perhaps two) besides me who were misled. Therefore, Drew's post was objectively misleading at least to some degree.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18089
    • Reputation: +8208/-629
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #53 on: August 01, 2014, 05:34:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    You're still doing it, and I suppose that means this is all of which you are capable:

    Quote

    It would appear that you only beef (again, one can only speculate) is that I noticed and complained about what I thought was a misleading introduction of a loaded term.


    On the contrary, my "beef" (your term) is that the word "reformulate" is PERFECTLY legitimate as Drew used it, and your being upset about it is your OWN PROBLEM, not everyone else's problem, which is what you keep trying to make it.  And THAT'S a problem, objectively (as opposed to your subjective problem).

    Don't tell me:  I've lost you again....................

    Quote

    If so, your feelings are duly noted.


    Your incessant penchant to repeat the description of your subjective misery over what someone else did that you would not have done is itself misleading because it has nothing to do with any substantive discussion.  And how I "feel" about it is irrelevant, and of no concern to me.  But it is to you, since that's all you care about -- how everyone "feels." Maybe you should be running a day-care center, because it's pretty clear you don't have all this time to worry about Internet virtual feelings if you had 7 children of your own on whose feelings about everything you would be focusing, instead of CI and members you've never met and probably never will.


    True to form, you're refusing to redeem yourself.  

    Typical of women, most of whom do not really belong in any substantive discussions like this one, you insist on focusing on the persons involved in the discussion and how they FEEL about things, rather than in the material under the topic -- by that I mean the facts of the EC's contents and the implications thereof, not whether everyone is COMFORTABLE with the discussion.  How you feel about what is said has little or nothing to do with the discussion, but I guess you'll never be willing to accept that and work with it, because you prefer to be COMFORTABLE in the conversation.  


    For the final time, you can redeem yourself by focusing on the following, which is truly not off-topic:

    Quote from: +W

    But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

    The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.


    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18089
    • Reputation: +8208/-629
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #54 on: August 01, 2014, 06:44:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    I'll start.

    Quote from: +W

    But what if these Masters claim that something is inside Tradition which is not there? On the one hand they are learned men, authorised by the Church to teach the people, and the people are relatively ignorant. On the other hand there is for instance the famous case of the Council of Ephesus (428), where the people rose up in Constantinople to defend the divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary against the heretical Patriarch Nestor.

    The answer is that objective truth is above Masters and people alike, so that if the people have the truth on their side, they are superior to their Masters if the Masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, thay have no right to rise up against the Masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither Masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if Masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it.




    In these two paragraphs, one finds the name "Nestor," referring to a patriarch of Constantinople who was condemned by the Oecumenical Council of Ephesus in A.D. 428.

    The story of Ephesus and Nestorius and the Theotokos and the nature of Christ is far from lost to history, in fact, I just had the alarming experience of finding two young women on my front porch, eager to speak with me about "the Female Image of God" while they assured me that they believe in the Trinity and in God the Son as Incarnated on Earth as Jesus Christ;  HOWEVER, they could not answer my question, "How many natures does Christ have, one or two?"  Or, rather, their eventual answer was that Christ has one nature.  They were much more interested in sharing how they FEEL about "God the Mother" with me.  (Note:  not "the Mother of God" -- Theotokos, a word they never heard before -- but "God the Mother.")

    Last time I checked, 2014 - 431 = 1583, so 1,583 years ago this question was settled, but here are two "Assembly of God" or "Elohim" or "Raelians" on my doorstep anxious to TEACH ME about something when they've paid no attention to the past 1,583 years of world history.

    Do you suppose there could be two men, one Nestor and the other Nestorius, both for whom the patriarchate and condemnation would be true?  The following article from Wikipedia is interesting in this regard (Note, if +W's "Nestor" and this "Nestorius" are the same person, the whole point of +W's mentioning him, the rising up of the people, is found near the middle of this Wiki article.  I find that most fascinating, that is, far more interesting for a substantive discussion than how YOU or ANYONE ELSE "feels" about whether we should warn readers every time we "introduce terms" only "with an explanation" into the discussion, otherwise the reader might have a hormone reaction and that means the "term" was "loaded."):



    Nestorius

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
       This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (December 2010)
    Mar Nestorius
    Archbishop of Constantinople
    Born    c. 386
    Germanicia, Syria (now Kahramanmaraş, Turkey)
    Died    c. 450
    Great Oasis of Hibis (al-Khargah), Egypt
    Honored in
       Assyrian Church of the East
    Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
    Feast    October 25
    Controversy    Christology, Theotokos

    Nestorius (/ˌnɛsˈtɔriəs/; in Greek: Νεστόριος; c. 386 – 450[1]) was Archbishop of Constantinople from 10 April 428 until August 431, when the emperor Theodosius II confirmed his condemnation by the Council of Ephesus on 22 June. His teachings included a rejection of the long-used title of Theotokos, "Mother of God", for Mary, mother of Jesus, and were misunderstood by many to imply that he did not believe that Christ was truly God. This brought him into conflict with other prominent churchmen of the time, most notably Cyril of Alexandria, whom he accused of heresy.

    Nestorius sought to defend himself at the First Council of Ephesus in 431, but instead he found himself formally condemned for heresy by a majority of the bishops and subsequently removed from his see. On his own request he retired to his former monastery in or near Antioch. In 435 Theodosius II sent him into exile in Upper Egypt, where he lived on till 450, strenuously defending his orthodoxy. His last major defender within the Roman Empire, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, finally agreed to anathematize him in 451 during the Council of Chalcedon; from then on he had no defenders within the empire. But the Church of the East never accepted his condemnation. This led later to western Christians giving the name Nestorian Church to the Church of the East, even though it never regarded him as an authoritative teacher. The discovery and publication of his Book of Heraclides at the beginning of the 20th century led to a reassessment of his theology in western scholarship. It is now generally agreed that his ideas were not far from those that eventually emerged as orthodox, but the orthodoxy of his formulation of the doctrine of Christ is still controversial. This is due to the fact that the Second Council of Constantinople of AD 553 confirmed the validity of the condemnation of Nestorius, refuting the letter of Iba that affirms that Nestorius was condemned without the due inquiry.[2]

    Contents

        1 Life
        2 Nestorian controversy
        3 Later events
        4 Writings
        5 Legacy
        6 Bazaar of Heracleides
        7 Notes
        8 References
        9 External links

    Life

    Nestorius was born around 381/386 in Germanicia in the Roman province of Syria (now Kahramanmaraş in Turkey).[3] He received his clerical training as a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Antioch. He was living as a priest and monk in the monastery of Euprepius near the walls, and gained a reputation for his sermons that led to his enthronement by Theodosius II as Patriarch of Constantinople following the death of Sisinnius I in 428.
    Nestorian controversy

    Shortly after his arrival in Constantinople, Nestorius became involved in the disputes of two theological factions, which differed in their Christology. Nestorius tried to find a middle ground between those that emphasized the fact that in Christ God had been born as a man and insisted on calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos (Greek: Θεοτόκος, "God-bearer"), and those that rejected that title because God as an eternal being could not have been born. Nestorius suggested the title Christotokos (Χριστοτόκος, "Christ-bearer"), but did not find acceptance on either side.

    "Nestorianism" refers to the doctrine that there are two separate hypostases in the Incarnate Christ, the one Divine and the other human. The teaching of all those churches which accept the Council of Ephesus is that in the Incarnate Christ is a single hypostasis, at once God and man.[4] This latter doctrine is known as the Hypostatic union. Nestorius's opponents charged him with detaching Christ's divinity and humanity into two persons existing in one body, thereby denying the reality of the Incarnation. It is not clear whether Nestorius actually taught this.

    Eusebius, a layman who later became the bishop of the neighbouring Dorylaeum, was the first to accuse Nestorius of heresy[5] but his most forceful opponent was Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria. All this naturally caused great excitement at Constantinople, especially among the clergy, who were clearly not well disposed towards the stranger from Antioch.[5] Cyril appealed to Celestine of Rome to make a decision, and Celestine delegated to Cyril the job of excommunicating Nestorius if he did not change his teachings in ten days.

    Nestorius had arranged with the emperor in the summer of 430 for the assembling of a council. He now hastened it on, and the summons had been issued to patriarchs and metropolitans on 19 Nov., before the pope's sentence, delivered though Cyril of Alexandria, had been served on Nestorius.[5] Emperor Theodosius II convoked a general church council, sited at Ephesus, itself a special seat for the veneration of Mary, where the Theotokos formula was popular. The Emperor and his wife supported Nestorius while Pope Celestine I supported Cyril.

    Cyril took charge of the First Council of Ephesus in 431, opening debate before the long-overdue contingent of Eastern bishops from Antioch arrived. The council deposed Nestorius and declared him a heretic.

    In Nestorius' own words,

        When the followers of Cyril saw the vehemence of the emperor... they roused up a disturbance and discord among the people with an outcry, as though the emperor were opposed to God; they rose up against the nobles and the chiefs who acquiesced not in what had been done by them and they were running hither and thither. And... they took with them those who had been separated and removed from the monasteries by reason of their lives and their strange manners and had for this reason been expelled, and all who were of heretical sects and were possessed with fanaticism and with hatred against me. And one passion was in them all, Jews and pagans and all the sects, and they were busying themselves that they should accept without examination the things which were done without examination against me; and at the same time all of them, even those that had participated with me at table and in prayer and in thought, were agreed... against me and vowing vows one with another against me... In nothing were they divided.

    But while the council was in progress, John I of Antioch and the eastern bishops arrived, and were furious to hear that Nestorius had already been condemned. They convened their own synod, at which Cyril was deposed. Both sides then appealed to the emperor. Initially, the imperial government ordered both Nestorius and Cyril deposed and exiled. Nestorius was bidden to return to his monastery at Antioch, and Maximian was consecrated Archbishop of Constantinople in his place. Cyril was eventually allowed to return after bribing various courtiers.[6]
    Later events

    In the following months, 17 bishops who supported Nestorius' doctrine were removed from their sees. Eventually, John I of Antioch was obliged to abandon Nestorius in March 433. On August 3, 435, Theodosius II issued an imperial edict that exiled Nestorius from the monastery in Antioch in which he had been staying to a monastery in the Great Oasis of Hibis (al-Khargah), in Egypt, securely within the diocese of Cyril. The monastery suffered attacks by desert bandits, and Nestorius was injured in one such raid. Nestorius seems to have survived there until at least 450 (given the evidence of The Book of Heraclides), though we have no knowledge of when after this date he died.[7]
    Writings

    Very few of Nestorius' writings survive. There are several letters preserved in the records of the Council of Ephesus, and fragments of a few others; about thirty sermons are extant, mostly in fragmentary form. The only complete treatise we have is the lengthy defence of his theological position, called The Book of Heraclides, written in exile at the Oasis, which survives in Syriac translation. This must have been written after 450, as he knows of the death of the Emperor Theodosius II (29 July 450).[8][9]
    Legacy

    Though Nestorius had been condemned by the church, including by Assyrians[citation needed], there remained a faction loyal to him and his teachings. Following the Nestorian Schism and the relocation of many Nestorian Christians to Persia, Nestorian thought became ingrained in the native Christian community, known as the Church of the East, to the extent that it was often known as the "Nestorian Church". In modern times the Assyrian Church of the East, a modern descendant of the historical Church of the East, reveres Nestorius as a saint, although the modern church does not subscribe to the entirety of the Nestorian doctrine as it has traditionally been understood in the West. Parts of the doctrine were explicitly repudiated by Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV on the occasion of his accession in 1976.[10]

    In the Roman Empire, the doctrine of Monophysitism developed in reaction to Nestorianism. This new doctrine asserted that Christ had but one nature, his human nature being absorbed into his divinity. This doctrine was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon, and misattributed to the non-Chalcedonian Churches. Today it is condemned as heresy in the modern Oriental Orthodox churches.
    Bazaar of Heracleides

    In 1895, a 16th-century book manuscript containing a copy of a text written by Nestorius was discovered by American missionaries in the library of the Nestorian patriarch in the mountains at Konak, Hakkari. This book had suffered damage during Muslim raids, but was substantially intact, and copies were taken secretly. The Syriac translation had the title of the Bazaar of Heracleides.[11] The original 16th-century manuscript was destroyed in 1915 during the Turkish massacres of Assyrian Christians.

    In the Bazaar, written about 451, Nestorius denies the heresy for which he was condemned and instead affirms of Christ "the same one is twofold"—an expression that some consider similar to the formulation of the Council of Chalcedon. Nestorius' earlier surviving writings, however, including his letter written in response to Cyril's charges against him, contain material that suggest that at that time he held that Christ had two persons.

    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18089
    • Reputation: +8208/-629
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #55 on: August 01, 2014, 07:05:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ...the whole point of +W's mentioning him, the rising up of the people, is found near the middle of this Wiki article.  It is here within the words of Nestorius himself, and it is perhaps telling that he accuses "the followers of Cyril" of having "roused up a disturbance and discord among the people with an outcry, as though the emperor were opposed to God."  I guess you could say those were the days when people took their religion seriously, unlike today!  To be honest, if not for +W's reference to this, I dare say that in my reading of this Wiki article, I would likely have missed the import of this "uprising" entirely.

    Please do not miss the innuendo, for it has been precisely on this matter alone, that Bishop Richard Willliamson has been dragged over the coals the past 6 (six) years because in Germany, it is precisely the matter of INCITING RACIAL UNREST over which his reputation has been smeared by the Zionists who hate him with a passion akin to that of Our Lord's.

    ...


    Nestorius

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    .
    .
    .
       
    Cyril took charge of the First Council of Ephesus in 431, opening debate before the long-overdue contingent of Eastern bishops from Antioch arrived. The council deposed Nestorius and declared him a heretic.

    In Nestorius' own words,

        When the followers of Cyril saw the vehemence of the emperor... they roused up a disturbance and discord among the people with an outcry, as though the emperor were opposed to God; they rose up against the nobles and the chiefs who acquiesced not in what had been done by them and they were running hither and thither. And... they took with them those who had been separated and removed from the monasteries by reason of their lives and their strange manners and had for this reason been expelled, and all who were of heretical sects and were possessed with fanaticism and with hatred against me. And one passion was in them all, Jews and pagans and all the sects, and they were busying themselves that they should accept without examination the things which were done without examination against me; and at the same time all of them, even those that had participated with me at table and in prayer and in thought, were agreed... against me and vowing vows one with another against me... In nothing were they divided.

    But while the council was in progress, John I of Antioch and the eastern bishops arrived, and were furious to hear that Nestorius had already been condemned. They convened their own synod, at which Cyril was deposed. Both sides then appealed to the emperor. Initially, the imperial government ordered both Nestorius and Cyril deposed and exiled. Nestorius was bidden to return to his monastery at Antioch, and Maximian was consecrated Archbishop of Constantinople in his place. Cyril was eventually allowed to return after bribing various courtiers.[6]
    Later events

    In the following months, 17 bishops who supported Nestorius' doctrine were removed from their sees. Eventually, John I of Antioch was obliged to abandon Nestorius in March 433. On August 3, 435, Theodosius II issued an imperial edict that exiled Nestorius from the monastery in Antioch in which he had been staying to a monastery in the Great Oasis of Hibis (al-Khargah), in Egypt, securely within the diocese of Cyril. The monastery suffered attacks by desert bandits, and Nestorius was injured in one such raid. Nestorius seems to have survived there until at least 450 (given the evidence of The Book of Heraclides), though we have no knowledge of when after this date he died.[7]
    Writings

    Very few of Nestorius' writings survive. There are several letters preserved in the records of the Council of Ephesus, and fragments of a few others; about thirty sermons are extant, mostly in fragmentary form. The only complete treatise we have is the lengthy defence of his theological position, called The Book of Heraclides, written in exile at the Oasis, which survives in Syriac translation. This must have been written after 450, as he knows of the death of the Emperor Theodosius II (29 July 450).[8][9]
    Legacy

    Though Nestorius had been condemned by the church, including by Assyrians[citation needed], there remained a faction loyal to him and his teachings. Following the Nestorian Schism and the relocation of many Nestorian Christians to Persia, Nestorian thought became ingrained in the native Christian community, known as the Church of the East, to the extent that it was often known as the "Nestorian Church". In modern times the Assyrian Church of the East, a modern descendant of the historical Church of the East, reveres Nestorius as a saint, although the modern church does not subscribe to the entirety of the Nestorian doctrine as it has traditionally been understood in the West. Parts of the doctrine were explicitly repudiated by Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV on the occasion of his accession in 1976.[10]

    In the Roman Empire, the doctrine of Monophysitism developed in reaction to Nestorianism. This new doctrine asserted that Christ had but one nature, his human nature being absorbed into his divinity. This doctrine was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon, and misattributed to the non-Chalcedonian Churches. Today it is condemned as heresy in the modern Oriental Orthodox churches.
    Bazaar of Heracleides

    In 1895, a 16th-century book manuscript containing a copy of a text written by Nestorius was discovered by American missionaries in the library of the Nestorian patriarch in the mountains at Konak, Hakkari. This book had suffered damage during Muslim raids, but was substantially intact, and copies were taken secretly. The Syriac translation had the title of the Bazaar of Heracleides.[11] The original 16th-century manuscript was destroyed in 1915 during the Turkish massacres of Assyrian Christians.

    In the Bazaar, written about 451, Nestorius denies the heresy for which he was condemned and instead affirms of Christ "the same one is twofold"—an expression that some consider similar to the formulation of the Council of Chalcedon. Nestorius' earlier surviving writings, however, including his letter written in response to Cyril's charges against him, contain material that suggest that at that time he held that Christ had two persons.

    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline peterp

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 203
    • Reputation: +0/-5
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #56 on: August 01, 2014, 08:35:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Drew,

    What you copied is really irrelevant and your assertions of me lying and your comments about Bp. Fellay are themselves calumnious.

    A bishop's flock has meaning; it denotes a territorial jurisdiction. That is why I qualified what I wrote with "If", "truly" viz. do you really understand what you are saying? Only a diocesan bishop has a flock. His auxiliaries do not, the Society bishops do not and Bp. Williamson does not. Indeed, both Bp. Tissier de Mallarias and Abp. Lefebvre have both made it clear that no jurisdiction was ever conferred and that any jurisdiction which does exist is only with the individual.

    A bishop's flock includes a clerical-flock as well as a lay-flock. This obviously implies a hierarchy. Fr. Chazel has already hinted at this a priest is nothing without a bishop [or words to that effect] and it is clear that resistance priests do regard him as their head (even if only informally). Whereas the Society and Bp. Lefebvre always made clear that they were not establishing a parallel hierarchy. Indeed not only is, for example, Bp. Tissier de Mallarias subject to the authority of the US District Superior, but also the prior of the Chicago priory.

    Bp. Williamson has already stated "It seems that, today, God wants a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience, which served to sink the mainstream Church ..."; he is clearly telling everyone to abandon and refuse any link to the hierarchy. Presuming he believes what he says: there ought to be no hierarchy and I'll do my best to dismantle it.

    I do not believe for one minute, anyone with a basic grounding - yes even a N.O. Grounding - in Catholicism cannot fail to smell the stench of protestantism in what Bp. Williamson has done and is doing.

    So yes, if you all believe that Bp. Williamson has a flock, in the true sense, that is schismatic.

    "Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome."
    Calumny: You know Bp. Fellay has already stated there will be no agreement soon.

    "For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets"
    Calumny: You know that This has never been the motive for discussion or seeking an agreement with Rome.

    "accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity."  
    Calumny: You know he has already reject HoC.

    Charity, justice etc. I won't hold my breath waiting...

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3712/-282
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #57 on: August 01, 2014, 09:03:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Columba,
    Quote
    How do I know Drew's initial introduction of the term "reformulate" was misleading? Because it had that effect on me. Initially it appeared that J.Paul and Cantarella were similarly misled, although J.Paul appears to have subsequently denied this for himself.


    To eliminate all speculation, I was not misled at all. I agreed with his use of the term due to the fact that it characterized what the Bishop said perfectly, and thus I commented using his term. Drew's meaning and intent was very clear. It was not confusing and it was not misleading, to me, and while I cannot speak for Canterella, I believe that she too, grasped his intended point as well.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18089
    • Reputation: +8208/-629
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #58 on: August 01, 2014, 11:01:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote

    Please do not miss the innuendo, for it has been precisely on this matter alone, that Bishop Richard Willliamson has been dragged over the coals the past 6 (six) years because in Germany, it is precisely the matter of INCITING RACIAL UNREST over which his reputation has been smeared by the Zionists who hate him with a passion akin to that of Our Lord's.
    ...



    IOW, what the enemies of the Faith are doing to +W of late is the same kind of thing the heretic Nestorius was attempting to do 15 centuries ago.  The tables have turned, though, and the outcry in ancient times to defend Tradition when the common man had the faith, has devolved into a state of affairs today whereby the mere threat or insinuation of "racial unrest" is sufficient to render judicial sanctions against a good bishop when he dares to say what is verifiable but also happens to be most politically incorrect.  

    As the courts say, "historical truth has nothing to do with it."  What they cannot deny is that "political incorrectness" has become grounds for court action against anyone who 'offends' the Modernist status quo by way of same.

    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18089
    • Reputation: +8208/-629
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #59 on: August 01, 2014, 11:37:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    Sorry, but this one is too good to pass up.  Father Alain Lorans' intro to the new DICI 299 (it heads the new email version but it's from January - Bis repetita non placent - 1-08-2014)  --  provides an example of an alternative phrasing for:

    The "Church needs living Masters to vary all the time the presentation and explanation of the unvarying truths."



    Drum roll, please...............

    He is "in a very delicate situation.  He ceaselessly has to correct, reframe, nuance….  He must constantly explain with infinitesimal subtleties…."


    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16