Kingofspades, RE ex cathedra
#1
More than twenty-four hours have passed since the last time I remarked in the JP2 saint thread that kingofspades had yet to clarify the following underlined statement, shown here in its full context:

(09-12-2012, 05:40 PM)kingofspades Wrote:
(09-12-2012, 05:18 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: So you hold critisizing the actions of a particular pope to be disloyality to the papacy? This is what is wrong. Icrespect the office of the us presidency...but obama can drop dead. Further I am glad you responded..and I will lay heavy into peoplevto draw them out to get them to reveal where they are coming from ( ask cooler king) as far as the comment about getting paid to stusy god..i admit that is just jelousy...I love apologetics...learning and teaching the faith and serving and participating in the liturgy. But because Im a working stiff with a large family I get only one regular day a week ...so it rubs me wrong when prieats play hilier then thou. Its easy to be a holy priest (granted once you are one ) but the laity dont have titles or collers or habits to hide behind. We have steuggle against evils and temptations that barely cross the AVERAGE priests path. And a POPE has no excuse...he has all the pwer in the world...if he would just have the salt to engage it. I am Loyal to the Pope...but its not ROME luv it or leave it. Even the "glorius " vat 2 grants the laity the right to critique the clergy.

You should try to get a better smartphone LOL


No, criticizing actions is not disloyalty per se.
Criticizing a beatification isn't a sin as such, if only you finally accept it as a subject of faith.
Even when we strongly disagree with teachings or decisions, even those ex cathedra, it's not a sin as such, until the moment we don't want to bow our head anymore.
And it's a grave sin when we are attacking Popes, calling them out for 'heretic' or 'modernist' and try to convince others not to obey, not to believe what they teach.

The latter happened here in this topic and I cannot remain silent about that.

So. Everyone is allowed to say: "I don't like JPII kissing a Koran", "I would never do so", "I wouldn't recommend anyone to do so", even: "I am not a fan of his style", or even: "I don't want to read any of his sermons", or even more dangerous "I ask myself whether it was the best thing to do when John Paul sanctified ...." BUT BUT BUT we are passing a critical line when we say:  "And so"... "He is not in heaven" or even worse "He cannot be in heaven". First because we are not God nor His Son who has the keys for judging, but also because those statements are stating that you don't accept the infallible decision of the actual Pope, which is a sinful act of disobedience and a grave sin against Catholic Faith. And if - like some here do - the following statement is that Pope Benedict is to be condemned because of beatifying John Paul II (and meanwhile summing up all the other so called 'heresies') the loyalty line is definitely crossed...

Got my point? Critizing isn't the biggest problem, although we need to be careful not to be imprudent! Drawing final conclusions and making an act of the will not to accept, is lethal.


"Even when we strongly disagree with teachings or decisions, even those ex cathedra, it's not a sin as such, until the moment we don't want to bow our head anymore."

Following that post...

(09-12-2012, 08:51 PM)JMartyr Wrote: "Even when we strongly disagree with teachings or decisions, even those ex cathedra, it's not a sin as such."
  How is this right?

         

(09-12-2012, 10:55 PM)tmw89 Wrote:
(09-12-2012, 08:51 PM)JMartyr Wrote: "Even when we strongly disagree with teachings or decisions, even those ex cathedra, it's not a sin as such."
  How is this right?

        

I don't think it is right, as disagreement with ex cathedra statements is very serious business... especially considering the two famous ex cathedra statements RE Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption are classified as Dogma.

How the Holy Office saw it at least up until V2:

Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them Wrote:(a) Theological note:                                          Dogma.

Equivalent terms:                                                Dogma of faith; de fide, de fide Catholica; de fide divina et Catholica.

Explanation:                                                        A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God.

Examples:                                                          The Immaculate Conception; all the contents of the Athanasian Creed.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy

Effects of denial:                                               Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.

Remarks:                                                           A dogma can be proposed either by a solemn definition of pope or council, or by the Ordinary Magisterium, as in the case of the Athanasian Creed, to which the church has manifested her solemn commitment by its long-standing liturgical and practical use and commendation.

http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html

It is my understanding from the above that internal assent is required, lest a man commit a "Mortal sin . . . directly against the virtue of faith."


So at the very least, JMartyr, the text you quoted is... problematic!

Kingofspades continued to post, but did not address the problem, even after JMartyr and later I brought it up again:

(09-13-2012, 07:24 PM)JMartyr Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 06:55 PM)kingofspades Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 03:18 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Sorry, I know I'm posting a lot in this thread, but so much bothers me. What's on my mind right now is that we have a Catholic priest -- KingOfSpades -- who (if I understand things correctly, and I beg pardon if I don't) has recently started offering the traditional Mass. He didn't have to do this, but he did. He is reaching out, trying to understand where trads are coming from, he wants to do the right things, he wants to shepherd trads in his parish, etc. He comes to this website -- and how is he treated? What is he learning about "the trad world"?

It makes me so sad...

I can imagine some of the thinking. "Well, so what? He should be offering the TLM anyway."  Of course he should have been trained in the TLM in seminary (preferably ONLY the TLM) and been offering it all along. But that's not how things have been working for the past half a century. And in spite of that, he is going out of his way to learn how to do it and to offer it to his parishioners.

"Well, so what? He's offering the TLM but isn't a 'real trad.' You can tell by other things he posts." Well, he's respectful of Popes that, at the very least (in my case anyway) find very weak, or worse, find heretical, or further along, believe to not be Popes at all (in the case of the sedevacantists who post here). But Catholics are supposed to be respectful of Popes, even those they find to be bad ones. St. Catherine of Siena's letters admonishing the Pope didn't address him with disrespectful nicknames (e.g, "Bennie")

But let's just say this priest were to have gotten things wrong (which I am not intimating; I'm just putting it out there as a hypothetical premise):  the way to deal with it is through charity, prudence, logic, and patient teaching, not the disrespectful stuff that's been going on at this forum. Here we have a PRIEST who cares enough about his vocation and about the souls of his parishioners to learn about the "trad movement" and to offer the traditional Sacramental rites (at least the TLM)! This is a great and beautiful thing, and we're shitting all over it. I am so disheartened I want to cry. Not just for this priest, but for the people in his parish who want the TLM and who MIGHT end up with a priest who becomes so wary of "trad-dom" because of the behavior of too many trads that he says "t'heck with it; this sort of animosity and arrogance haven't been a danger with the N.O. communities I've dealt with so far, I am getting as far away from "traditionalists" as I can and will do all in my power to warn my parishioners away from them, too!" And it'd be understandable. Not right, but understandable. I find myself often inviting people to check out the FE main site -- and warning them away from the forum because of the foulness of some of the posts here. Yeah, I warn people away from my own forum.

Really, I don't know what to do about this sort of thing aside from prayer and throwing in posts here and there. I have no idea what good my prayers for this cause are doing, but it seems that posting has no effect, that there are some people who are so angry and bitter that they would even bite a hand that is trying to feed them. There seems to be a lot of chest-thumping, a pride in being contrary for the sake of it, lots of throwing around of outlandish, hurtful language "just 'cause" or just to "prove" that the writer isn't afraid of the PC police (or is really -- and most likely righteously -- angry about the PC police) or just to show that the poster is a "real man" -- isn't like one of those spineless, touchy-feely products of the overly-feminized "newchurch." (Oorah! The angrier and nastier the better, right!? And let's talk nonsense about women while we're at it!) It's childish. 

I've said it before and I will say it again now and, undoubtedly, a hundred more times in the future:  prudence is thrown to the wind around here. It hurts the cause of Tradition -- and, worse, it wounds Our Lord Himself. There's pride in some folks for the amount of anger they exhibit. Pride and anger, two of the seven deadlies, with one being used to support the other. If Dante had it right, there will be a lot of Fishies choking on thick, heavy smoke while carrying huge boulders on their backs in Purgatory.  Or if they die without grace, broken on a wheel and dismembered.

Father, if you're still around, I want to assure you of something:  as I said in another thread, the less angry, less bitter, more "sane," if you will, trads tend not to post as much as those have problems with wrath and pride. There are gazillions (I counted!) of trads out there who are warm, joyous, bright people who sincerely love Jesus Christ and His Church and who want to see all of the goals of "the trad movement" realized. Many even have a sense of humor! ha Seriously, I pray that no matter what you see on internet forums, you continue to offer the traditional Mass -- and ALL of the traditional Sacramental rites. They are so beautiful, so much more reverent and efficacious in inspiring piety and awe, much more complete in terms of Scripture and Church teaching than the newer rites. Your parishioners deserve them, and with a priest who knows JOY and the PEACE OF CHRIST offering them, a priest who doesn't water down the Church's teachings in his sermons, they can't lose. I, for one, thank you for helping with the Restoration. Bravo to you! :)

Thanks for this post. I could not reply before, a parish priest is sometimes busy.  :)

Where to start.

Well, I must admit that I have waited 5 years since SP to start celebrating the TLM, in fact knowing that it's a Mass I could do (I studied for a doctorate in patristics, I love Latin and so some other priests tried to convince me before) but... the reason not to start was always the way some really fanatic adherers of the TLM behaved. I always said: I don't want to be part of a sect.

What did convince me to start with it: a friend  who discovered it himself, never attended it, and begged me 'please, celebrate that Mass, I will be your server'. And so we started, just the two of us, with the Missal and the instruction video's of the FSSP. He is the perfect acolyth, without ever done it before, knowing the prayers at the foot of the altar by heart from the very first time, and it was for me as if I re-discovered my vocation. Simply wow.

Today it's exactly 4 months since I celebrated my very first TLM with this server. I have celebrated about 10 Masses before I told others about it, and to my big surprise in no time there was a stable group of about 20-25 people from my own parish and the surroundings of my town, who all wanted this to continue, and now we have every week a public EF Mass at thursday, but I must admit that most weeks I celebrate at least 3 EF Masses, also privately when I don't have a Mass on the parish schedule, or with the friend who introduced me for TLM.

Those who attend the EF Mass all say what you also wrote: this Mass is "so beautiful, so much more reverent and efficacious in inspiring piety and awe, much more complete in terms of Scripture and Church teaching than the newer rites. "

Meanwhile I offer all Sacraments and rites possible in the EF, I think we need to do that, like Pope Benedict wants us to do. I have made a lot of effort to learn them, understand them, and made small booklets in Latin/Dutch in order to lower the treshold for the parishioners, and offer them on my own website for all who want to. In our parish church we will have before Advent even a special EF Mass chapel, the parish board gives all cooperation.

Let me be clear about it: nobody is going to stop me. O yes, there is opposition. I get nasty letters and an older fellow-priest doesn't want to speak with me anymore. Let that be so. My bishop is positve about EF Mass in general, in our diocesan seminary more than 50% of the seminarians love the EF and it's offered in the seminary Chapel. And it is my right to do so, and for me meanwhile even my duty to do so. I speak frankly with everyone about my recent 'discovery' and since my heart is full of it, I let it show. Result: at least 5 fellow priests (all younger priests who never celebrated EF Mass before) want to learn it now, and to my great joy, also the young priest coming in my team! So I hope to be with 2 priests able to celebrate EF Mass in our parish soon. :)

VoxClamantis, don't worry too much about me here on FE Forum. Of course I see a lot of nastyness and disrespect. But as a parish priest, believe me, I am used to more than this. We live in an era where a priest is less than nothing in the eyes of people and the way people are sometimes calling names here, is nothing compared to the rudeness the people in my town use for 'human' communication. Ha! Skin of an elephant!

However, that is true for me. I really don't care. BUT you are so right about the bad example some members here give to others who don't have my type of skin. I think the behaviour of some here can really scare people off from traditional catholicism generally. And that is the reason why I can fully understand your concern. There is a lot of interesting content here, but also a lot of hate and angryness. I understand the frustration from others, of course. But it doesn't justify losing some prudent self-control.

For the rest I understand the way this forum is moderated. It's very open to all kind of opinions, also views I can personally not call catholic anymore. Where traditional catholicism becomes rigid traditionalism, and people start calling names to a Pope, the border is crossed imho. In this and other topics I make clear in every reply that I cannot live with that. People can call me whatever they want, even when I am a priest, but keep your keyboard-fingers from the Pope!!!

Those who join the Pope-bashing team of more or less sedevacantists or even denying the real problems of the SSPX with 'Rome' should realize themselves, that every word you write on this forum makes you responsable for good or evil for others. It is a grave sin to bring others in the position that they are having doubts about their loyalty to the Pope. And maybe something to consider for you, VoxClamantis, letting people spread that seed of schism and disrespect here, is maybe something that shouldn't be tolerated for the sake of the souls here. Not every FishEater will probably have the elephant-skin like I have, or the stability in his soul to keep balance in the war against so called modernism, in the way some here want to fight.
Please clarify this quote , Father?
"Even when we strongly disagree with teachings or decisions, even those ex cathedra, it's not a sin as such."

(09-13-2012, 10:38 PM)tmw89 Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 07:24 PM)JMartyr Wrote: Please clarify this quote , Father?
"Even when we strongly disagree with teachings or decisions, even those ex cathedra, it's not a sin as such."

I'd still like to see a clarification on that point as well, JMartyr... and in case user "kingofspades" has not seen it already, I should especially like to learn in such a clarification how to reconcile the aforementioned quote with the content in the following post: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33796688

(and in case anyone finds the material I cited earlier in English as doubtful due to the web-source of the translation, I can provide the original Latin from my copy of the 1951 Imprimi Potest'd, Imprimatur'd book)

Given the grave nature of the apparent misinformation kingofspades has published on this forum RE ex cathedra statements, I have decided to branch into a new topic in order to better grab his attention.  I hope he provides a clarification soon.

EDIT:

This really gets right to the heart of the matter:

(09-15-2012, 04:35 PM)Doce Me Wrote: Cardinal Newman said that "ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate;"

When it comes to ex-cathedra teaching, difficulties should not even make a doubt, let alone a disagreement.
Reply
#2
(09-13-2012, 11:28 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 10:38 PM)tmw89 Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 07:24 PM)JMartyr Wrote: Please clarify this quote , Father?
"Even when we strongly disagree with teachings or decisions, even those ex cathedra, it's not a sin as such."

I'd still like to see a clarification on that point as well, JMartyr... and in case user "kingofspades" has not seen it already, I should especially like to learn in such a clarification how to reconcile the aforementioned quote with the content in the following post: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33796688

(and in case anyone finds the material I cited earlier in English as doubtful due to the web-source of the translation, I can provide the original Latin from my copy of the 1951 Imprimi Potest'd, Imprimatur'd book)

Father, you're about to be examined by the dreaded Fish Eaters' Inquisition. Beware!

Taking the risk that some people here have the matches prepared to enlighten me with the light of my own stake...  :P

... I will provide the ladies and gentlemen with the following.

It's in fact very simple.

Reading heretic or sinful things isn't a sin as such - maybe just imprudent - therefore I still read some replies here, even though I consider them as extremely dangerous for Catholic Faith, like the hammering-attacks on Popes and more evil things like that.
Hearing music from rock groups like Queen isn't a sin as such (at least some tradi's here are very persistent in that) even while the lead singer is a great example for their kids who also want to behave a bit 'weird' and hearing him say 'Well, hell is a cosy place, better than heaven'.
And even when I would think, well, maybe I also feel that those SSPX Pope-bashers have a point, indeed, that JPII kissing the Koran was an evil thing and well maybe this man wasn't so saint as he looked... it's still no sin as such.
Even when I would think: 'well, better the Pope didn't have beatified him, how can such a bad example for us be in heaven' is that still no sin as such.

Even while the latter is a disagreement with an ex-cathedra decision, because sanctifications... are infallible.

No, the Holy Virgin Mary did not sin (of course not!) when St. Gabriel annuntiated her that she would be the Mother of the Saviour, and she did not agree immediately, because she knew very well that this couldn't happen without having a man: "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?".

Sin, ladies and gentlemen, starts at the very moment our WILL comes into action, saying "I WANT to disagree" or even worse: "I don't accept."

The Holy Virgin Mary is the perfect example of obedience, acceptance, giving her will to God, without even a seed of pride. And what is so important in the Gospel Luke 1 in the dialogue with St. Gabriel? "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." And because the Holy Virgin showed God that she wanted this with her free will, after careful consideration, she is the Queen of heaven and earth.

We can ask questions, disagree, think about it, consider things. Studying dogma is most times also studying the rejected heresy. And feeling the tension between the whole truth and the lie looking like the truth. That's no sin. If only the conclusion is: I want to give up my pride, I want to bow my head, I will accept what the Church teaches.

Again: "Got my point? Critizing isn't the biggest problem, although we need to be careful not to be imprudent! Drawing final conclusions and making an act of the will not to accept, is lethal."

Let me make clear that I don't use the word 'denial' - don't put words in my mouth I did not use!!! Disagreement. If I am properly informed as a non-native English-speaker, that is not the same as denial, or?

Back on topic. I can accept that people here around have problems with recent Popes. No problem, not a sin as such to investigate contradictions, even when meanwhile criticizing a lot of dogmatic teachings of magistery. The sin begins at the moment we start to turn criticism and disagreement into denial and non-acceptance. And the latter happens here a lot. Really a lot... :S

This is an offspring of the Pope-bashing thread. I did not speak about Immaculate Conception. I did speak about sanctifications ex cathedra.
Of course a couple of KingofSpades-bashers here do everything possible to paint me black and accuse me of heresy, in order to destroy my credibility. The smoke of a burning priest smells sweeter than of an avarage heretic, or? Good luck with that, good try. :P

Allow me however to call the inquisition for some of the statements agaisnt the Pope and the infallible sanctifications on this forum. Abp Müller knows you already, I suppose. I hear him scratching his matches... Oh wait, there is still time for you to convert to the One and Holy Catholic Church, under the only safe guidance of the Holy Spirit and the succesor of St. Peter He always inspires, Pope Benedict XVI.

I hope I have informed you properly, in order to stop the misinformation spreaded about my intents :)
Reply
#3
(09-15-2012, 02:03 PM)kingofspades Wrote: We can ask questions, disagree, think about it, consider things. Studying dogma is most times also studying the rejected heresy. And feeling the tension between the whole truth and the lie looking like the truth. That's no sin. If only the conclusion is: I want to give up my pride, I want to bow my head, I will accept what the Church teaches.

Here the problem rears its head again:  no, you cannot disagree with Dogma, even in its study.  Such a statement is astonishing in itself, but to think it is here coming from a user who says he is a priest...

(09-15-2012, 02:03 PM)kingofspades Wrote: Again: "Got my point? Critizing isn't the biggest problem, although we need to be careful not to be imprudent! Drawing final conclusions and making an act of the will not to accept, is lethal."

Let me make clear that I don't use the word 'denial' - don't put words in my mouth I did not use!!! Disagreement. If I am properly informed as a non-native English-speaker, that is not the same as denial, or?

I don't think I even need a dictionary for this, let's just parse it out:  is disagreement the same as denial?  Well, to dis-agree is to not agree.  If one does not agree, is that a denial?  At the very least, the denial is implicit.  That denial is even implied in relation to how a man can regard ex cathedra statements - again, considering those things which have been classified as such - is, as I wrote earlier, problematic.

(09-15-2012, 02:03 PM)kingofspades Wrote: Back on topic. I can accept that people here around have problems with recent Popes. No problem, not a sin as such to investigate contradictions, even when meanwhile criticizing a lot of dogmatic teachings of magistery. The sin begins at the moment we start to turn criticism and disagreement into denial and non-acceptance. And the latter happens here a lot. Really a lot... :S

Again, the disagreement itself RE dogma = problematic, even if not expressed in the public forum, but internally manifest.

(09-15-2012, 02:03 PM)kingofspades Wrote: This is an offspring of the Pope-bashing thread. I did not speak about Immaculate Conception. I did speak about sanctifications ex cathedra.

Here's the pertinent text from what kingofspades wrote, again:

(09-12-2012, 05:40 PM)kingofspades Wrote: Even when we strongly disagree with teachings or decisions, even those ex cathedra, it's not a sin as such, until the moment we don't want to bow our head anymore.

Still there is something that has not quite connected with him.  I'll reiterate:  lack of internal assent to dogma is sinful.  Given that kingofspades purports he is not a native English-speaker, I am tempted to extend some benefit of the doubt; however, given that he also purports he is a priest, he should take special care discussing the mechanics of dogma and ex cathedra statements, especially outside his native language!  This should go without saying, but by all indications it must be said.

(09-15-2012, 02:03 PM)kingofspades Wrote: Of course a couple of KingofSpades-bashers here do everything possible to paint me black and accuse me of heresy, in order to destroy my credibility.

To borrow a few of your own words...

(09-15-2012, 02:03 PM)kingofspades Wrote: don't put words in my mouth I did not use!!!

At any rate:

(09-15-2012, 02:03 PM)kingofspades Wrote: I hope I have informed you properly, in order to stop the misinformation spreaded about my intents :)

Ball is back in your court.  Serve RE lack of internal assent to dogma, knowingly acknowledged by subject as such.
Reply
#4
(09-15-2012, 03:03 PM)tmw89 Wrote: Given that kingofspades purports he is not a native English-speaker, I am tempted to extend some benefit of the doubt; however, given that he also purports he is a priest, he should take special care discussing the mechanics of dogma and ex cathedra statements, especially outside his native language! 

Speaking of meanings of words, the word "purports" means " "To have or present the often false appearance of being or intending."  You are implying  that kingofspades is dishonest.  There is no good reason to question either of these claims. It is merely a way to be insulting. I think that greater respect ought to be shown to a priest. 
Reply
#5
As a clarification of my own, this thread concerns the user kingofspades RE ex cathedra.  Other users, in particular those who are aware I cannot see their posts, are asked to desist:  kingofspades can speak for himself.
Reply
#6
In my opinion, priests should be asked not to debate here.  Yes, we must respect the priesthood.  On the other hand, we cannot allow priests to make false or scandalous assertions and go unchallenged.  The solution is to ask them not to debate, to ignore them if they do, or not to participate here at all.

More and more, I see the wisdom in Fr. Rostand's objection to traditional Catholic Internet fora. 
Reply
#7
(09-15-2012, 03:39 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: In my opinion, priests should be asked not to debate here.  Yes, we must respect the priesthood.  On the other hand, we cannot allow priests to make false or scandalous assertions and go unchallenged.  The solution is to ask them not to debate, to ignore them if they do, or not to participate here at all.

More and more, I see the wisdom in Fr. Rostand's objection to traditional Catholic Internet fora. 

Impy, thank you for your input here.  I mostly agree with you.

I assure you my aim in creating this thread was not debate of any kind, as the subject is not debatable:  either one assents to dogma, or one does not.  No room for "disagreement."  I continue to wait for the clarification to be made abundantly clear.
Reply
#8
(09-15-2012, 03:39 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: In my opinion, priests should be asked not to debate here. 

Right. It might turn into some kind of hang out for Roman Catholics.
Reply
#9
(09-15-2012, 03:48 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote:
(09-15-2012, 03:39 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: In my opinion, priests should be asked not to debate here. 

Right. It might turn into some kind of hang out for Roman Catholics.

Reported to mod as implicit violation of Paragraph 5 of the Forum Rules: General Rules.
Reply
#10
(09-15-2012, 02:03 PM)kingofspades Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 11:28 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 10:38 PM)tmw89 Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 07:24 PM)JMartyr Wrote: Please clarify this quote , Father?
"Even when we strongly disagree with teachings or decisions, even those ex cathedra, it's not a sin as such."

I'd still like to see a clarification on that point as well, JMartyr... and in case user "kingofspades" has not seen it already, I should especially like to learn in such a clarification how to reconcile the aforementioned quote with the content in the following post: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33796688

(and in case anyone finds the material I cited earlier in English as doubtful due to the web-source of the translation, I can provide the original Latin from my copy of the 1951 Imprimi Potest'd, Imprimatur'd book)

Father, you're about to be examined by the dreaded Fish Eaters' Inquisition. Beware!

Taking the risk that some people here have the matches prepared to enlighten me with the light of my own stake...  :P

... I will provide the ladies and gentlemen with the following.

It's in fact very simple.

Reading heretic or sinful things isn't a sin as such - maybe just imprudent - therefore I still read some replies here, even though I consider them as extremely dangerous for Catholic Faith, like the hammering-attacks on Popes and more evil things like that.
Hearing music from rock groups like Queen isn't a sin as such (at least some tradi's here are very persistent in that) even while the lead singer is a great example for their kids who also want to behave a bit 'weird' and hearing him say 'Well, hell is a cosy place, better than heaven'.
And even when I would think, well, maybe I also feel that those SSPX Pope-bashers have a point, indeed, that JPII kissing the Koran was an evil thing and well maybe this man wasn't so saint as he looked... it's still no sin as such.
Even when I would think: 'well, better the Pope didn't have beatified him, how can such a bad example for us be in heaven' is that still no sin as such.

Even while the latter is a disagreement with an ex-cathedra decision, because sanctifications... are infallible.

No, the Holy Virgin Mary did not sin (of course not!) when St. Gabriel annuntiated her that she would be the Mother of the Saviour, and she did not agree immediately, because she knew very well that this couldn't happen without having a man: "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?".

Sin, ladies and gentlemen, starts at the very moment our WILL comes into action, saying "I WANT to disagree" or even worse: "I don't accept."

The Holy Virgin Mary is the perfect example of obedience, acceptance, giving her will to God, without even a seed of pride. And what is so important in the Gospel Luke 1 in the dialogue with St. Gabriel? "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." And because the Holy Virgin showed God that she wanted this with her free will, after careful consideration, she is the Queen of heaven and earth.

We can ask questions, disagree, think about it, consider things. Studying dogma is most times also studying the rejected heresy. And feeling the tension between the whole truth and the lie looking like the truth. That's no sin. If only the conclusion is: I want to give up my pride, I want to bow my head, I will accept what the Church teaches.

Again: "Got my point? Critizing isn't the biggest problem, although we need to be careful not to be imprudent! Drawing final conclusions and making an act of the will not to accept, is lethal."

Let me make clear that I don't use the word 'denial' - don't put words in my mouth I did not use!!! Disagreement. If I am properly informed as a non-native English-speaker, that is not the same as denial, or?

Back on topic. I can accept that people here around have problems with recent Popes. No problem, not a sin as such to investigate contradictions, even when meanwhile criticizing a lot of dogmatic teachings of magistery. The sin begins at the moment we start to turn criticism and disagreement into denial and non-acceptance. And the latter happens here a lot. Really a lot... :S

This is an offspring of the Pope-bashing thread. I did not speak about Immaculate Conception. I did speak about sanctifications ex cathedra.
Of course a couple of KingofSpades-bashers here do everything possible to paint me black and accuse me of heresy, in order to destroy my credibility. The smoke of a burning priest smells sweeter than of an avarage heretic, or? Good luck with that, good try. :P

Allow me however to call the inquisition for some of the statements agaisnt the Pope and the infallible sanctifications on this forum. Abp Müller knows you already, I suppose. I hear him scratching his matches... Oh wait, there is still time for you to convert to the One and Holy Catholic Church, under the only safe guidance of the Holy Spirit and the succesor of St. Peter He always inspires, Pope Benedict XVI.

I hope I have informed you properly, in order to stop the misinformation spreaded about my intents :)

Good post, Father. If I can offer a suggestion, perhaps the word "doubt" would be better than "disagree" here. Anyway, to summarize what I think you are saying: it is not a sin to have some troubles or questions about a teaching as long as we are attempting to understand it in a spirit of obedience, prudence, and humility. The problem comes in once we assert our own will and decide that this or that specific teaching is wrong and we will simply not accept it.

This all seems reasonable to me. I think the problem we run into here is that many conservative Catholics, and here trads are no different from the "neocons," tend to put forth a definition of Catholicity that puts great emphasis on blind adherence to dogma. The goal is a vacuum-sealed set of propositions to which everyone must give assent, which leads them to downplay or ignore the social and mystical elements of the Faith. Of course, many today go too far in the other direction, and, as you say, assert their own will, but this does not mean that we need to go to the opposite extreme and become the thought police. I also think that in both cases, those of the liberal and conservative Catholic, the ways in which political and theological positions interact should be given some consideration.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)