I should have known you'd smell blood in the water.
We're having a discussion.
It sounds like you're only going to get through to Ladislaus with reasoned arguments, not common sense. That seems to be Lad's Achilles' heel.
I need to do better at ignoring stuff like this. So I'll start now.
And, honestly, I don't even care about what Sean said about me, not really, because I know it's utter nonsense. I object more to the fact that it's irrational nonsense.
So, for instance, because I defended Jone's opinion, SeanJohnson began referring to me as Ladislaus the Sodomite. This was after I had stated that I myself had never engaged in the controversial activity.
Similarly, I also defended another position of Jone, that it was not necessarily sinful to smoke marijuana, under the very conditions Jone laid out. The equivalent here would be for Johnson to call me a "pothead". I myself have never in my life used this drug or any other illegal drug.
Similarly, I argued that, to be consistent, if you believe that these Popes and hierarchy are legitimate, then in fact the fast days of Lent (except Good Friday and Ash Wednesday) are in fact no longer binding under pain of sin. Is this because I am trying to justify my OWN not fasting? Absolutely not. In point of fact, I not only kept the Traditional fast, but THEN some. And I am not convinced of these popes' legitimacy. Since I am in a state of doubt about their legitimacy, and since doubtful laws do not bind, then I could have in good conscience NOT fasted. So it is not to justify my own non-fasting (which did not happen) that I made the case. On this issue, I called SeanJohnson out for a similar position. He claimed that, despite the fact that the men whom he acknowledged as the legitimate hierarchy had relaxed the obligation, it would still be a mortal sin not to attend Mass on certain Traditional Holy Days that were no longer observed by the Novus Ordo. So now SeanJohnson sets HIMSELF up as having the authority to impose his conscience on others, but he rejects the authority of the Church to do that by releasing the obligation. In so doing, he's very clearly usurping the authority of the Church and arrogating it unto himself. That is PRECISELY what he was doing with this latest controversial issue.
There are lots of things that I would never do or would never be inclined to do, that I would excuse others from sin. Also, it's very very important to distinguish from imperfection (the Evangelical counsels) and sin. I had another argument with Sean over this (I can't remember the exact context). There are things that would be ideal or better, but which are not binding under pain of sin, and therefore I could not bind others with. So, for instance, if I were a woman, I would probably wear a skirt down as low to the ground as possible while being practical and safe. But just because I would do it, this does not mean that I can look down on someone else who does not, provided that they are still within the bounds of not being sinful. In fact, I would never "look down" on someone who even crossed the line into immodesty. I am not their judge, and I don't know what lights and graces they have received, and what they have not received. I only know what I have received. And that is why the greatest saints often considered themselves the greatest sinners, because they tend to excuse (subjectively, that is) faults in others that they acknowledge as blameworthy in themselves. Even when I see a serial killer, I do not hold the man in contempt, but feel pity for him, since I know full well that, had God not given me the many graces he has, that I'm just a hair's breadth away from doing the same thing myself.
And, finally, you, Matthew, jump to the conclusion that the only way I could possibly defend this position is because of some personal issue (along these lines). So that was the final proverbial straw with regard to this mode of thinking. Just as I defended these other two matters in principle without any personal stake in it, the same thing goes here. I am not perfect, and I myself have indeed made some compromises from the ideal here or there ... based on prudential considerations (whether right or wrong, God will be my judge) ... but I acknowledge when I am making these and I never paper over it with fake arguments. I never reason backwards from my actions to justify them.
So, in summary, SeanJohnson has a long history, on this latest issue, and with regard to several other issues, to pretend that he has the ability to decide objective moral law and impose his conscience on others. That prerogative belongs only to the Church, and this mentality that an individual's private judgment can trump that of the Church where it comes to informing consciences, well, that is in fact the clearest example of the harm that can come from the R&R position. People often talk about the bad fruits of sedevacantism, but this is one foul-smelling rotten fruit from the R&R position.
Topic: Holy Family Academy - ANOTHER SCANDAL IN PHOENIX (Read 21984 times)